22 dead, dozens injured after suicide bombing of Syrian church
Emergency services work at the scene of a suicide bombing at Mar Elias Church on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria, on June 22, 2025. Photo by Mohammed Al Rifai/EPA-EFE
June 23 (UPI) -- More than 22 people were killed and another nearly 60 were injured when an Islamic State suicide bomber attacked a church in the Syrian capital of Damascus, officials said.
The attack occurred Sunday at the St. Elias Church in the Al-Douweila neighborhood of the capital city.
The Syrian ministry of interior said in a statement on X that the suicide bomber entered the church, opened fire and then detonated their explosive vest.
Security forces reportedly rushed to the scene and cordoned off the entire area permitting specialized teams to begin their investigation, it said.
"These terrorist acts will not deter the Syrian state's efforts to achieve civil peace, nor will they deter Syrians from their choice to unite in the face of all those who seek to undermine their stability and security," Interior Minister Anas Khattab said in a statement on X
The casualty toll was initially reported by the ministry of health as nine dead and 13 injured, but the count has steadily climbed in the hours following the attack to 22 killed and 59 injured.
Photos published to the health ministry's social media accounts show officials, including Assistant Minister of Health Hussein Al-Khatib, meeting with injured victims of the attack.
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch posted graphic photos of the aftermath of the attack, showing blood-strewn floors and what appear to be the remains of bodies.
"The arrow of lawlessness was unleashed and struck our souls in the night," it said in a statement.
"We pray for the repose of the souls of the martyrs, for the healing of the wounded and for the comfort of the faithful of the Church."
United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Geir O. Pedersen condemned the attack in a statement, expressing his outrage at "this heinous crime."
U.S. Ambassador to Syria Tom Barrack also offered his condolences.
"These terrible acts of cowardice have no place in the new tapestry of integrated tolerance and inclusion that Syrians are weaving," he said on X.
"We continue to support the Syrian government as it fights against those who are seeking to create instability and fear in their country and the broader region."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Assassinating a foreign leader is illegal. Will Trump try anyway?
One thing we have learned about President Trump is that he means what he says. No more TACO — 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' He threatened mass deportations, and we have them. He threatened draconian tariffs, and we have them. He threatened law firms and universities, and many have caved. He threatened Iran with a strike on its nuclear sites — and well, you know the rest. Trump claimed he had 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program. The Pentagon said our bombers have inflicted 'severe damage.' But experts cautioned it is still too early to assess the extent of the damage. And we can only speculate on what Iran might do to retaliate. The situation is fraught with geopolitical risk. But the strike has most likely left Iran with few viable options. In an address to the nation Friday night, Trump said, 'There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight's was the most difficult of them all by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.' So we have to take seriously Trump's astounding message to the world from a week or so ago, when he said he had rejected a proposal from Israel to assassinate Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On Truth Social, Trump pursued the point: 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target but is safe there — we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' This left the option to assassinate the Supreme Leader on the table. That should have been an 'are you serious?' moment, even for Trump. Heads of state and heads of government just about never decide to kill each other, even in wartime. For if you to do it to them, then they may do it to you. And assassination is illegal under international law. There would be tremendous risks in taking out Khamenei. Going after a man who is seen to be both holy as well as a political leader would make the regime more popular internally. It would transform Khamenei into a martyr. And the U.S. going after a foreign leader, however despicable he may be, is a red line that we don't cross. Or is it? Political assassination is nothing new in Trump's arsenal of weapons. He owned up to a stated desire to assassinate Syria's Bashar al-Assad in 2017. Had he done so, it would have become America's first targeted killing of a foreign leader. Trump decided to respond to the Syrian government's chemical attacks on civilians with airstrikes on military targets instead of targeting Assad directly. Those airstrikes were also unlawful under international law, since the U.N. Charter does not recognize humanitarian intervention as a justification for use of force. Trump's decision kept the U.S. from crossing the Rubicon into the dark areas of assassination of foreign heads of state. He eventually settled for top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, whom Trump ordered assassinated in a January 2020 drone strike. Trump said many Americans had been killed by Soleimani. A U.N. agency on extrajudicial killings concluded that the Soleimani strike was 'unlawful.' Trump claimed that the Soleimani strike was legally permissible because the general posed an 'imminent' threat. America targets individuals it has designated as 'terrorists,' but whom the military is not officially fighting. The State Department had designated Soleimani as a terrorist, but Iran is not covered by the congressional authorizations for the use of military force that the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations employed to pursue al-Qaeda-linked terrorists and ISIS. Those authorizations are why the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was not considered an 'assassination'; Baghdadi was a combatant in a congressionally sanctioned military conflict the U.S. was fighting. 'Assassination' is banned under President Gerald Ford's Executive Order 11905. That order 'prohibited any member of the U.S. government from engaging or conspiring to engage in any political assassination.' Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, prohibits the U.S. intelligence agencies from engaging in assassination, but with assassination left undefined. Webster defines assassination as 'The act of killing or murdering, by surprise or secret assault; murder by violence.' The closest thing we have to an official definition is contained in a 1989 interagency document known as the Parks Memorandum, which defines assassination as an act of murder for political purposes. It was created to 'explore assassination in the context of national and international law' and make sure that the U.S. Army's Field Manual complied with EO 12333. Parks concluded that the 'clandestine, low visibility or overt use of military force against legitimate targets in time of war, or against similar targets in time of peace where such individuals or groups pose an immediate threat to United States citizens or the national security of the United States … does not constitute assassination … and would not be prohibited by the proscription in EO 12333 or by international law.' The ban is established by presidential order, not statute. Trump knows how to issue executive orders. He can readily change the landscape with a new order, if he is so advised. Under international law, killings done either in national self-defense or carried out as part of a legally predicated armed conflict are lawful, and so likely wouldn't be considered 'assassinations.' Under those circumstances, a head of state is a legitimate military target. There is ongoing dispute anyway about the circumstances under which international law is binding on the U.S. — Trump has been dismissive of it, and its precepts cannot be enforced against the U.S. anyway. If you go for a foreign leader such as Khamenei, you don't know that whoever replaces him won't be far more malicious; that a resulting leadership vacuum and social chaos might not engulf your interests too; that dead leaders can't negotiate; or that the martyred leader might not be far more powerful in death than in life. Khamenei is 86. The Bible reminds us that 'To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.' But with Trump, assassination stays on the table. He has sharp elbows. As his son-in-law Jared Kushner put it in a 2020 interview, 'We live in a very dangerous world,' and Trump, he said, 'knows that it's a full-contact sport. This is not touch football.' James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin.
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Why the US is attacking Iran now
The United States bombed Iran on Saturday night, joining an Israeli-led offensive aimed at demolishing the Iranian nuclear program. The American assault targeted three facilities associated with the program at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow — the last of which was widely seen as too fortified for the Israelis to disable without American help. President Donald Trump, addressing the nation on Saturday night, claimed that the US had won a great victory. The attacks were a 'spectacular military success,' he said, that 'totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear program. No future strikes were planned unless Iran retaliated; if it did, Trump warned, 'future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' But it is very far from clear how true any of this is. We do not yet have conclusive evidence on the damage done to Iranian facilities, and there is at least some reason to believe that key elements of the program escaped US and Israeli bombs. More broadly, the nature of the US-Iran relationship is long and difficult, with so much mutual distrust and hatred on both sides that it's easy to imagine scenarios by which what's designed to be one-off strikes escalate into something much bigger. What follows is an attempt to help you understand the big questions swirling around the US-Iran fighting: what we know about the bombing itself, to be sure, but also the deeper context and history necessary to understanding why America is willing to risk yet another war in the Middle East. 1. Why is the US attacking Iran now? By far the most important reason both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump struck now is a perception among their countries' respective security establishments that, in recent months, Iran — suddenly and surprisingly — became vulnerable. Both countries' security establishments have long seen Iran as an enemy. In particular, Israel has argued that Iran getting nuclear weapons would be disastrous — greatly strengthening a serious foe and, at worst, jeopardizing Israel's very existence. Yet war with Iran has long been seen as a fearsome prospect. Iran had funded and cultivated formidable proxy forces — including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon — that would be sure to unleash their arsenals on Israel if war broke out. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was also a longtime ally of Iran, and any prolonged Israel-Iran conflict would involve Israel repeatedly flying over Syrian airspace and potentially draw Syria into the war too. In retrospect, Hamas's October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel ended up triggering a chain of events in which all of those obstacles fell away, one by one. First, Israel went into Gaza and killed thousands of Hamas militants (in addition to causing enormous civilian casualties). Second, last September, Israel decimated Hezbollah with its 'exploding pager' attack and other operations. Third, in December, Assad's regime suddenly collapsed, and the rebels who took over have not seemed to be spoiling for a fight with Israel. (Separately, Iran's air defenses had also been badly weakened due to Israeli strikes last year.) So basically, US and Israeli military planners believed that the Iranians were sitting ducks — and had far less ability to retaliate. The logic went: They're vulnerable, so why not stop them from getting nukes now? Still, Trump remained reluctant to green-light an attack, and when Israel went forward with one, he initially kept his distance. But the quick success of Israel's strikes seemingly confirmed Iran was quite weak. Hawks argued to Trump that this was a golden opportunity to easily destroy Iran's nuclear program with little or no cost to American lives, and he decided to give it a shot. —Andrew Prokop 2. Did the strikes succeed? According to the Pentagon, US B-2 bombers dropped 14 30,000-pound 'massive ordinance penetrator' (MOP) bombs on the Iranian enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow while submarines launched Tomahawk missiles at a third site at Esfahan. On Saturday night, Trump declared that the three sites had been 'totally obliterated.' The following day, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine was a bit more cautious, telling reporters, 'final battle damage [assessments] will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.' Satellite images show heavy damage at all sites, but initial Israeli assessments suggest that the site at Fordow — located deep underground — was not completely destroyed. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency said in a statement that, given its location, the level of damage at Fordow was impossible to assess without access to the site. Perhaps more importantly, analysts are skeptical that the Tomahawk missiles were enough to destroy the underground tunnels at Esfahan, where the bulk of Iran's uranium stockpile was believed to have been stored, and it's possible that much of the stockpile was relocated prior to the airstrike. Secretary of State Marco Rubio conceded in an interview on Sunday that 'no one will know for sure for days' whether the uranium was moved. Iran's nuclear program definitely suffered a major, perhaps devastating, setback, but the status of its uranium stockpile and its ability to rebuild its destroyed infrastructure are still unknowns. —Joshua Keating 3. Why are the US and Iran enemies? Last week, an Israeli airstrike destroyed two 1970s-era, US-made F-14 fighter jets, which were still in the Iranian air force's inventory: a reminder that the US and Iran had once been military partners. That changed in 1979 when Iran's pro-American autocratic ruler, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown and the regime known as the Islamic Republic, which still rules Iran today, was established. Resentment of the US ran deep among the revolutionaries: The CIA had organized a coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and backed the Shah's autocratic regime in the years that followed. The revolution's hardline religious ideology sought to rid Iran and its region of American political and cultural influence. 'Death to America' and 'death to Israel' have been popular chants at pro-government rallies in Iran since the revolution. Shortly after the Shah's overthrow, radical Iranian students overran the US embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage for over a year. Relations between the two countries never recovered. The US imposed tough economic sanctions against Iran and backed Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime during the long and devastating Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. During the 1980s, Iran began building a network of proxy groups to advance its interests throughout the Middle East. Most notable was the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, responsible for the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed more than 240 US troops. After the US invasion of Iraq, Iranian-backed militia groups carried out hundreds of attacks on US troops, often using Iranian-designed improvised explosive devices to devastating effect. The Pentagon has blamed Iran for the deaths of at least 600 US troops during this period. US troops in the Middle East still periodically come under fire from Iranian proxy groups, including, most recently, Yemen's Houthis. Though the US has long been alarmed by Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the country was included in George W. Bush's 'axis of evil' along with Iraq and North Korea, the last four US administrations have avoided taking military action against Iran's nuclear program, instead relying alternately on escalating economic sanctions and diplomatic negotiations in an attempt to head off an Iranian bomb. —Joshua Keating 4. Why was the attack controversial among Republicans? Trump's attack on Iran came after months of factional infighting on the US right. On one side were the hawks: the traditional GOP establishment, who wanted aggressive action against those they deemed America's enemies, including Iran. On the other side was an upstart 'America First' faction — informally led by Tucker Carlson and Vice President JD Vance — that feared being pulled into another Middle Eastern war that doesn't truly serve America's interests. The two groups battled for months over administration appointments, while their outside allies argued in the press. Initially, it seemed the America Firsters had won Trump over. In contrast to the 'maximum pressure' sanctions of his first term, he began his second term claiming he wanted serious negotiations over their nuclear program. In April, Trump reportedly waved off an Israeli proposal to strike and pursued talks instead. But the hawks soon struck back, uniting around a demand that any deal should not allow Iran to pursue any nuclear enrichment whatsoever — a demand Trump soon echoed. No deal on those terms materialized, Trump eventually decided he wouldn't stand in Israel's way anymore, and now he's sent US bombers into the fray too. The hawks are overjoyed. —Andrew Prokop 5. Was Iran actually racing toward a nuke? The US intelligence community had previously assessed that Iran halted its efforts to build a nuclear weapon in 2003, but international monitors say Iran has also been dramatically increasing its uranium enrichment activities since 2018, when Trump pulled the US out of the 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions. And while officially, Iran has insisted that it's only seeking a civilian nuclear program, officials in Tehran have also been talking more openly about the value of actually having a nuclear weapon. In May, the International Atomic Energy Agency assessed that Iran had amassed a stockpile of 408 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent. Just 42 kilograms could be enough to build an atomic bomb if enriched to 90 percent, a relatively simple technical step. US officials had said that Iran could produce enough uranium for a bomb in one to two weeks and build a weapon in just a few months. But acquiring the ability to build a bomb and actually building one are not the same thing. In March, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, testified to Congress that the intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini [sic] has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' The government of Israel, which has long advocated military action against Iran's nuclear program, was not so confident. In recent weeks, they had reported gathered intelligence leading them to believe Iran's nuclear weapons program had reached a 'point of no return'. According to reporting by the Economist, this included evidence that Iranian scientists had squirreled away quantities of nuclear material that international inspectors were unaware of, and that these scientists had met with commanders of Iran's missile program about producing a weapon. The Wall Street Journal and other outlets reported last week that US intelligence agencies had not found the Israeli evidence convincing and stood by the assessment Gabbard had shared in March that Iran had not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. This may be a difference in interpretation rather than evidence: Rather than waiting for Khamenei to make an active decision, the Israelis appear to have believed that they had to act once it got to the point that there was no guarantee they could stop it in time if Iran did rush for a bomb. In any event, Trump now appears to find the Israeli case more compelling than that of his own intelligence agencies. Asked about Gabbard's statement last week, Trump said, 'I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having a weapon.' —Joshua Keating 6. How might Iran retaliate? So far, Iran's military response to both US and Israeli attacks has been underwhelming. Tehran is clearly hobbled by the damage Israel did to its proxy militias, Hezbollah and Hamas, and its ballistic missiles are not capable of threatening the Israeli homeland in the way that many fear. But there are two things Iran hasn't tried that are, after American intervention, more likely to be on the table. The first is an attack on US servicemembers stationed in the Middle East, of which there are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 at present. Of particular note are the US forces currently stationed in Iraq and Syria. Iraq is home to several Iranian-aligned militias that could potentially be ordered to directly attack American troops in the country or across the border in Syria. The second is an attack on international shipping lanes. The most dangerous scenario involves an attempt to use missiles and naval assets to close the Strait of Hormuz, a Persian Gulf passage used by roughly 20 percent of global oil shipping by volume. If Iran either kills significant numbers of American troops or attempts to do major damage to the global economy, there will surely be American retaliation. In his Saturday speech, Trump promised that if Iran retaliates, 'future [American] attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' An effort to detonate the global oil market would, without a doubt, necessitate such a response: the US cannot allow Iran to hold its economy hostage. We do not, to be clear, know whether Iran is willing to take such risks — or even if they can. Israeli attacks have devastated its military capabilities, including ballistic missile launchers that allow it to hit targets well beyond its borders. —Zack Beauchamp 7. Will this be a one-off strike or a wider war? It is all too easy to see how these initial strikes could escalate into something much bigger — if Iran's nuclear program remains mostly intact, or if Iran retaliates in a way that forces American counter-escalation. The strike could escalate into a war if the strikes did not fully succeed and the United States decides to finish the job, committing itself to, at minimum, an indefinite bombing campaign — and at most a war of regime change. Or the United States and Iran could become locked in an escalating cycle of violence, with retaliation from Iran provoking more attacks from the United States. It's also possible neither occurs, and this stays as limited as currently advertised. Key decision points are ahead, like whether Trump orders another round of US raids on Fordow or Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz — and it's hard to know which choices the key actors in Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem will make. —Zack Beauchamp
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia: Other nations ready to supply Iran with nukes after U.S. strike
June 22 (UPI) -- In the wake of President Donald Trump's strike on Iran's nuclear sites Saturday, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that "a number of countries" are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear weapons. Gen. Dan Caine said at a Pentagon press conference Sunday that measuring the damage at the sites would take time but that an initial assessment indicates that all three sites sustained "severe damage and destruction." He revealed that the mission involved 75 precision-guided munitions, including 14 GBU-57 bunker-busters. "Do you remember that the operation was beginning, I promised you that Iran's nuclear facilities would be destroyed, one way or another. This promise is kept," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on social media, revealing that the strike was carried out by the United States in "full coordination" with the Israeli Defense Forces. While Israeli and American authorities have indicated major damage at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan, Iranian and Russian authorities have indicated only minor damage to Iran's capabilities for nuclear enrichment. "What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?" Medvedev questioned in a post on social media. "The enrichment of nuclear material -- and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons -- will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." Medvedev said Iran's political leadership has survived despite Israel's apparent pursuit of a regime change and may have "come out even stronger." Like Russia, Iran ally Pakistan is armed with nuclear weapons but said Thursday that it had not yet received requests for any military assistance from Iran while expressing alignment with its neighbor. It has since condemned the U.S. attack on Iran. "The unprecedented escalation of tension and violence, owing to ongoing aggression against Iran, is deeply disturbing. Any further escalation of tensions will have severely damaging implications for the region and beyond," Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Sunday. Sa'eed Iravani, Iran's ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations in New York, has called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, Iranian state media reported Sunday. Iran is calling for the Security Council to rebuke the United States, which is a permanent member of the UNSC. The Russian Foreign Ministry also released a statement condemning the strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, calling them a violation of international law and the United Nations charter. It called the attack a "substantial blow to the global non-proliferation regime built around the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." "They have significantly undermined both the credibility of the NPT and the integrity of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) monitoring and verification mechanisms that underpin it," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. China's Foreign Ministry likewise said the United States had violated the U.N. charter and international law as it called for Israel to reach a ceasefire "as soon as possible." "China stands ready to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East. A Telegram account affiliated with the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps said Sunday that satellite images show Iran had evacuated everything from the Fordow site 48 hours before the US attack and moved it to a safe location. "This image shows a large number of trucks that had quickly evacuated enrichment materials, equipment and other supplies from the Fordow site," the post reads. "It is clear that Trump's failed and dramatic attack not only did not damage the underground Fordow facilities, but the site was empty." Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director-general of the IAEA, said Sunday he will call an emergency meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on Monday after the American strike. He said Iranian nuclear officials had not recorded an increase in off-site radiation levels. "As of this time, we don't expect that there will be any health consequences for people or the environment outside the targeted sites," Grossi said. "We will continue to monitor and assess the situation in Iran and provide further updates as additional information becomes available." In apparent criticism of the United States, Grossi said he had "repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities should never be attacked." He called for Israel and the U.S. to stop their "hostilities" against Iran so that the IAEA's "vital inspection work" in Iran could continue. Meanwhile, the IRGC-affiliated Telegram channel said Sunday that Iran struck Israel's Ben Gurion Airport, as well as a biological research center that reportedly housed research into biological warfare, among other military targets. "This time, sirens sounded after the precise hits, throwing the enemy off balance," the statement said. "We announce that the main parts of the capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran's armed forces in this sacred defense have not yet been put into operation." Meanwhile, Israel's war against Gaza continues. The Gaza Health Ministry said Sunday that the death toll has risen to 55,959 people while medical facilities are facing blood shortages. The WAFA news agency reported Sunday that Israeli forces reportedly detained at least 26 Palestinians in the West Bank on Sunday after conducting overnight raids.
