Relieved Pakistanis recall 'horrifying nights' as Israel, Iran trade strikes
Mohammad Hassan anxiously returned to Pakistan from neighbouring Iran this week after witnessing drones, missiles, and explosions tear through Tehran's sky during what he called long, "horrifying nights".
The 35-year-old University of Tehran student is one of about 3,000 Pakistanis who, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have returned home since Israel launched its aerial war against its long-time enemy last week.
Governments around the world are scrambling to evacuate their nationals caught up in the rapidly spiralling conflict as Israel and Iran trade missile and drone strikes.
"I was in the city centre where most of the strikes took place and even one of the student dormitories was attacked and luckily no one was dead, but students were injured," Hassan said.
There are more than 500 Pakistani students at his university alone, he said, all of them on their way "back home".
"Those days and nights were very horrifying... hearing sirens, the wailing, the danger of being hit by missiles. As one peeped out the window in the night, you could see drones, missiles with fire tails," he told AFP.
- Ghost town -
Pakistan and Iran have a shaky diplomatic relationship. They bombed each other's territory little more than a year ago, both claiming to target rebels using their neighbour's land to launch attacks.
Yet they have never suspended trade, tourism and academic ties.
Iranian consulates across Pakistan have stepped up efforts to promote their universities.
Between 25 million and 35 million Pakistani Shiite Muslims also hope to make at least one pilgrimage in their lifetime to holy sites in Iran, foremost among them the sacred city of Qom.
Mohammad Khalil, a 41-year-old petroleum engineer, left Tehran three days ago, the capital of the Islamic Republic looking like a ghost town as residents sheltered indoors and families fled.
"In the last two days, I saw people moving out of the city in different vehicles with necessary commodities," Khalil said.
Abdul Ghani Khan sells medical equipment in his hometown of Peshawar in northwest Pakistan and travels to Iran regularly for supplies.
He had been in Tehran for a week when the first Israeli missiles fell on Friday. Iran and Israel have traded heavy missile fire in the days since, raising fears of a wider regional conflict.
Pakistan is in a difficult position as the only Muslim-majority country with nuclear weapons. It, like Iran, does not recognise Israel but is also a major ally of the United States.
Khan had to make the journey home by road because the airspace is now closed. Pakistan has also shut its border crossings with Iran to all except Pakistanis wanting to return home.
"We saw drones, red lights of anti-aircraft guns and I spotted one building catch fire," Khan said.
- 'Offering prayer' -
Mohammad Asif, a lawyer from Lahore in Pakistan's east, heard about the air strikes while on a pilgrimage in Qom.
He wasn't initially afraid and continued his pilgrimage to Mashhad in Iran's northeast, home to the golden-domed Imam Reza shrine.
That was until Israeli strikes hit the airport in Mashhad, nearly 1,000 kilometres (620 miles) from the Pakistani border.
Samreen Ali was also in Mashhad but, like Asif, cut her trip short and returned with her husband and 15-year-old son.
She was praying in a mosque in Mashhad when Israel struck the city.
Ali said she had visited Iran nine times before on pilgrimages and never imagined witnessing war there.
"I was offering prayer when I heard two explosions," she told AFP.
She then noticed she wasn't receiving messages on her phone and assumed that "communication was being restricted... because of the war".
Syed Saqib, 46, was in Qom and had to travel 500 kilometres (310 miles) by bus southeast to Yazd.
"We had to take alternative routes, spend an entire night waiting at a bus terminal," Saqib said.
They then boarded buses to Zahedan, a city near the border with Pakistan's Balochistan province. A relieved Saqib recalled making the border crossing at Taftan, surrounded by families carrying heavy luggage.
mak-sam/stm/pbt
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Intercept
31 minutes ago
- The Intercept
How Democratic Leaders Quietly Support Trump's March to War With Iran
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Some Democrats are fighting to stop war with Iran, but party leaders are silently acquiescing or, worse, supporting an attack. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., conducts a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington on May 20, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images As President Donald Trump barrels toward a direct war with Iran, the most powerful Democrats in Congress are issuing statements that are at best tepid and confusing. At worst, they are cheering escalation. Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution and other legislation to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party's most powerful politicians refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump. Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be 'tough' on Iran and not make any 'side deals' without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 2, 2025 'The United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response,' he said in a follow-up statement released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. 'The Iranian regime's stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.' Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks — 'a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.' The 'meaningful leverage' in question, however, is bombing Iran — something Schumer tacitly supports. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel's attack with a toothless statement that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. 'Our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad,' he said. 'It is clear that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to the entire free world. There is no circumstance where Iran can be permitted to become a nuclear power.' Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency. 'As soon as is practical, it is imperative to find a rigorous diplomatic path forward and avoid any situation where U.S. troops are put in harm's way,' he said. As with Schumer, 'diplomacy' is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand — and certainly not a requirement. A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump's pending bombing campaign, namely the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal and CNN, which suggest Iran hadn't decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did. If all of the statements look similar, it's because, according to DropSite and the American Prospect, many members of Congress are simply copy and pasting approved language from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby group. These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they 'stand with Israel' and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words. Among the influential Democrats pledging their unflinching support for Israel was Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many others, Meeks hauled out a talking point about how 'Israel has a right to defend itself' — meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It's a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an 'imminent threat' in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a 'right to defend itself' in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so. The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don't end there. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, influential members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, both issued mealy-mouthed statements trying to split the baby between 'diplomacy' rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel's bombing of Iran. These non-positions — or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal war — are notable precisely because there are some lawmakers who are at least trying to do something to stop a direct, all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran. According to the latest count by Prem Thakker, 37 members of Congress have thrown their weight behind some kind of effort to stop war. These fall into two camps. The first is a resolution in both the House and Senate that invokes the 1973 War Powers Act, which says that only Congress can declare war, a principle that has been routinely violated by U.S. presidents. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading this push in the Senate, where few cosponsors have signed on. (Someone with knowledge of the effort told us that the organizers aren't accepting co-sponsors in a bid to gain bipartisan support first.) Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are leading the sister effort in the House, and it has 28 supporters total, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. D-N.Y. A total of 27, or 12.7 percent, of House Democrats have lent the bill their support. There is another effort afoot, too: the No War Against Iran Act that was already in motion before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, though it was introduced after the attacks began. The Senate bill, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would prevent federal funds from being used for a war that's not approved by Congress. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., are among its eight Senate supporters. Democratic leaders, however, are leaving their colleagues out to dry. Schumer, for instance, declined to join Sanders's bill as a cosponsor — despite having cosponsored the same effort in 2020. This tacit and open support for Trump's war aren't limited to active leadership; the upper echelons of the party establishment have been noticeably silent. Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement. Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama haven't publicly opposed Trump's reckless threats and build-up to war with Iran. Obama, for example, has re-emerged into the spotlight — but made no mention of Iran or Trump's push for war during a public appearance this week. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — despite frequently criticizing Trump for his military parade, detainment of a U.S. senator, and anti-abortion policies — hasn't spoken in opposition to a US war with Iran. And, likewise, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who has been speaking out against Trump, has yet to publicly criticize Trump's build up to bombing Iran. Surveying these responses — somewhere between muted disinterest and consent — there's only one plausible conclusion: Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement in this potentially catastrophic regime change war. It's unlikely most Democratic hawks will come out in open support of an attack that carries such political risks; like with Iraq 20 years ago, things could quickly go off the rails. Yet, even as party leaders seek to burnish their credentials as the 'resistance' to Trump, they're tacitly, and sometimes openly, giving Trump a green light to lurch America into yet another open-ended war of choice. Join The Conversation


Axios
39 minutes ago
- Axios
Americans largely disapprove of U.S. involvement in Israel and Iran war: Poll
A majority of Americans don't want the U.S. to get involved in the escalating war between Israel and Iran, a poll released this week found. The big picture: President Trump is slated to make a decision"within two weeks" on whether to join Israel in its effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program, the White House said Thursday. He's leaving the door open to a diplomatic solution in the coming days that could avert a major escalation in the Middle East, Axios' Barak Ravid reports. Zoom in: 60% of Americans think the U.S. military should not get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran, according to an Economist/YouGov poll released this week. Only 16% support U.S. military action, and 24% are unsure. That largely holds up across party lines, with 65% of Democrats, 61% of independents and 53% of Republicans opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran. About as many people see Iran's nuclear program as a threat as those who oppose military intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict: 61% of Americans view Iran's nuclear program as either an immediate and serious or a somewhat serious threat to the U.S. Similarly, most Americans think the U.S. should engage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program — that's true across 58% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans. Zoom out: In a second poll, released Thursday by the Washington Post, 7 in 10 Americans believe Iran's nuclear program poses "an immediate and serious" or "somewhat serious" threat to the U.S. Republicans are more likely to say it is an immediate and serious threat than Democrats or independents, per the survey. The fine print: The Economist/YouGov poll was conducted among 1,512 U.S. adult citizens June 13–16, and the margin of error for the overall sample is approximately 3%. The Washington Post poll was conducted on June 18 among a random sample of 1,008 U.S. adults and has a margin of sampling error of ±3.6 percentage points.


Time Magazine
42 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump to Decide ‘Within Two Weeks' Whether to Take Action on Iran
President Donald Trump will make a decision within two weeks on whether to strike on Iran, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters during a press briefing on Thursday. Reading a statement from Trump, Leavitt said, 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' [time-brightcove not-tgx='true'] The President's deadline comes amid escalating strikes between Iran and Israel—and as the U.S. considers direct military action against Iran. On Wednesday, when asked if the U.S. was moving closer to striking Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump told reporters, 'I may do it, I may not do it, nobody knows what I'm going to do… I can tell you this. Iran's got a lot of trouble.' 'The United States government maintains this fact that Iran has never been closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon,' Leavitt went on to say. She noted that the President continues to be briefed by his National Security Council and remains in 'constant communication' with the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The attacks between the two countries began last Friday, when Israel launched what it called 'preemptive air strikes' targeting more than a dozen sites in Iran. The Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) says that since Israel's initial missile attack on Iran, 639 people have been killed there and a further 1,329 injured—the organization says that 263 of those killed were civilians and 154 military personnel. In Israel, 24 people have been killed so far by Iranian strikes, with 838 injured. On Thursday, an Iranian missile strike damaged a hospital in southern Israel, as part of a barrage of strikes Israel said injured 271 people. Trump's base is divided as he weighs his options, especially given that he campaigned on a pledge of no new wars. The two-week timeline opens the door for negotiations, but does not negate the possibility of U.S. involvement. 'The president has made it clear he always wants to pursue diplomacy,' Leavitt said. 'But believe me the president is unafraid to use strength if necessary.'