Appeals for de-escalation after Israel bombarded by Iranian missiles
Calls from Sir Keir Starmer and other world leaders for calm amid the mounting conflict appeared to fall on deaf ears, as Tehran struck back against Israel's attacks.
Air raid sirens sounded out across Israel and its citizens were ordered to move into bomb shelters, as the attack began.
A plume of smoke could be seen rising from central Tel Aviv amid the barrage, after at least one Iranian missile appeared to bypass the iron dome missile defence system.
Smoke rises after a missile attack in Tel Aviv on Friday (Leo Correa/AP)
The rocket attacks on the Tel Aviv area wounded 34 people, according to Israel's paramedic service, including one woman critically injured after being trapped under rubble.
Israel's paramedic service said two people were killed and another 19 people were injured after Iranian missiles struck the central Israeli city of Rishon LeZion on Saturday.
A spokesperson for Beilinson Hospital said one woman was killed in a second Iranian barrage when a building was hit in Tel Aviv.
A spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry said continuing nuclear talks with the US would be 'meaningless' after the strikes, although he stopped short of saying the talks were cancelled according to The Mizan news agency.
Operation Rising Lion – the offensive against Tehran – has mainly targeted nuclear sites, including destroying the above ground section of Iran's main Natanz nuclear base.
Hossein Salami, the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was among the senior Iranian figures reportedly killed in Israel's initial overnight strikes.
Some 78 people were killed and more than 320 wounded in Iran, according to its ambassador to the UN.
The attack is believed to be the most significant Iran has faced since its war with Iraq in the 1980s.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said 'more is on the way' in a video message released on Friday night.
امشب، می‌خواهم با شما، مردم محترم ایران، صحبت کنم.
ما در میانه یکی از بزرگ‌ترین عملیات‌های نظامی در تاریخ، هستیم – عملیات طلوع شیران.رژیم اسلامی که تقریباً ۵۰ سال شما را سرکوب کرده، تهدید به نابودی کشور ما- اسرائیل می‌کند.
هدف عملیات اسرائیل جلوگیری از تهدید هسته‌ای و موشکی… pic.twitter.com/sS5cXgJExi
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) June 13, 2025
Danny Dannon, Israel's UN ambassador, claimed the operation was launched because Iran was 'within days' of having the capability of building nuclear weapons.
Tensions between Israel, the US and Iran have escalated in recent weeks, amid negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal, which is aimed at preventing the country from developing nuclear weapons.
On Friday, Israel's western allies attempted a diplomatic blitz aimed at cooling temperatures in the Middle East.
After convening a Cobra meeting of senior ministers and officials, Sir Keir spoke to Mr Netanyahu, urging him to de-escalate and work towards a 'diplomatic resolution'.
The Prime Minister and US President Donald Trump agreed the burgeoning conflict needed to be resolved by 'diplomacy and dialogue'.
And Sir Keir joined with France's Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Friedrich Merz in calling for restraint.
David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, spoke to Iran's foreign minister and urged calm, later warning the Middle East is facing a 'moment of grave peril'.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer spent Friday speaking to world leaders about the situation in the Middle East (Jordan Pettitt/PA)
Mr Trump has also suggested that Iran now had a chance to agree a nuclear deal to bring an end to the fighting.
On his Truth Social platform, the President wrote: 'Two months ago I gave Iran a 60 day ultimatum to 'make a deal'. They should have done it!
'Today is day 61. I told them what to do, but they just couldn't get there. Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!'
Both the UK and the US have insisted they were not involved in the Israeli strikes and that Israel acted unilaterally.
The first time Israel discussed the strikes with the UK was at midday on Friday, according to Tzipi Hotovely, the country's ambassador to the UK.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for the attacks to be halted.
'Israeli bombardment of Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian missile strikes in Tel Aviv. Enough escalation. Time to stop. Peace and diplomacy must prevail,' he said in a post on X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer must intervene over Thames Water crisis, say creditors
Sir Keir Starmer is facing pressure to intervene in efforts to save Thames Water amid concerns that rescue talks could stall and leave Britain's biggest utility facing collapse. Investors spearheading a bid for the stricken company say Ofwat's unwillingness to compromise on the issue of future fines threatens to scupper Thames's efforts to avoid special administration. As fears over a breakdown in discussions escalate, the Prime Minister is being urged to step in and compel the watchdog to soften its stance on financial penalties. 'We have had a year of dealing with one of the most intractable regulators I've ever had the misfortune of coming across,' an investor involved in the rescue talks said. 'They have failed in their job. Absolutely, we need intervention from Downing Street.' Another figure close to the planned deal added: 'I think what it takes is the Government and the regulator coming together – it needs the Environment Department, the Treasury, and even No 10 to say, 'what's the least worst outcome here?'' Growing criticism of Ofwat comes just days after the company's largest creditors tabled a proposal that would provide Thames with desperately needed fresh capital and repair its broken balance sheet. However, in return for a proposed £3bn cash injection and more than £2bn of new loans, the consortium of more than 100 creditors is demanding immunity from billions of pounds in future fines – a request the watchdog is reluctant to grant. Creditors have calculated that Thames could be on the hook for more than £1bn in further pollution and environmental failing penalties, The Telegraph understands. In an attempt to persuade Ofwat to soften its stance, creditors are already preparing a second, sweetened bid that could see the consortium willing to offer more cash and write off a larger slug of debt. One FTSE 100 infrastructure fund warned that Ofwat's intransigence could weigh on Labour's attempts to drum up appetite among foreign investors for UK assets. 'There is £500bn of investment that's needed across UK infrastructure that is contingent on stable regulation,' an investor at the fund said. A source close to Thames's creditors said: 'Ofwat is undermining the Government's aim to attract private capital and deliver growth and reform across the water sector.' With the rescue talks at risk of being derailed, Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing, is demanding to rejoin the auction for Thames. It comes after KKR, the preferred bidder, abandoned its pursuit of the business earlier this month. Mr Li's CK Infrastructure (CKI) Holdings wrote to Sir Adrian Montague, the chairman of Thames Water, urging him to readmit them to the process. However, any such move is expected to be fiercely resisted by creditors who question whether CKI's ties to China will trigger a lengthy investigation under the National Security and Investment Act. It is understood they have already raised such concerns with Ofwat, while also warning about the amount of time needed for CKI to undertake due diligence. A source close to the creditors expressed surprise that ministers were yet to get involved: 'They've got a regulator that continues to care more about showing they can punish this company and throw billions in fines at an insolvent business. That is not going to improve performance for customers.' 'Not been supportive' Another pointed the finger directly at David Black, the Ofwat chief executive. 'It's well known Black has not been that supportive of some of these initiatives,' the source said. A spokesman for the creditors added: 'These investors have the funding and experience required to deliver a transformation which is intended to mark a departure from past failings, creating a 'new' Thames Water that works effectively alongside government, regulators, and customers to deliver for the environment and economic growth.' The institutions behind the plan include Assured Guaranty, Aberdeen Investments, Apollo, Attestor Asset Management, Royal Bank of Canada, Elliott, Prudential, Pimco, Invesco, Silver Point Capital, and Voya Financial. An Ofwat spokesman said: ''Our focus is on ensuring that the company [Thames] takes the right steps to deliver a turnaround in its operational performance and strengthen its financial resilience to the benefit of customers.' Ofwat is 'assessing whether the plans are realistic, deliverable and will bring substantial benefits for customers and the environment,'' they added.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Israel and US perilously ‘gaming' over the fate of entire Middle East
But those were precisely the words posted by US Republican Senator Lindsay Graham on social media on Friday shortly after Israel launched its massive air strikes against Iran, targeting its nuclear programme, military facilities and killing two of the Islamic Republic's top military commanders. Graham - a Trump ally - was far from alone, with at least three other senior Republican politicians using the exact words; 'Please join me in praying for Israel' in their statements. Not to be outdone, US House Speaker Mike Johnson was also at pains to make clear that Israel's actions were justified, declaring on social media, 'Israel IS right – and has a right – to defend itself!' Many of course would choose to differ, arguing with some justification that Israel's attack was unprovoked and in clear violation of the international law as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and of anything that can be labelled a rules-based international order. In making their case, the same people might also point to the fact that today this is now almost par for the course when it comes to Israel. They might argue too that by embarking on ethnic cleansing in Gaza and persistently using excessive force in serial attacks on Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and the occupied West Bank, it's Israel itself that currently constitutes the biggest danger to the region. It was at around 3.30am Iran time on Friday that Israel launched at least six waves of air strikes in what it is calling Operation Rising Lion. In the wake of the strikes, Iran's state news agency confirmed that several senior military figures including Major General Hossein Salami, head of the elite Revolutionary Guards, were killed. (Image: First-responders gather outside a building that was hit by an Israeli strike in Tehran) Scientists killed Iran's armed forces chief of staff, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, was also killed, state television reported. Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a prominent physics professor, and Fereydoon Abbasi, a former head of Iran's atomic organisation, also died, the state news agency confirmed Israel's wave of attacks also struck command-and-control centres, ballistic-missile bases and air-defence batteries. Some of the attacks are reported to have been carried out by operatives from Israel's Mossad intelligence agency and the electronic surveillance and targeting commando, military Unit 8200, who reportedly located key Iranian commanders and two leading nuclear scientists with precise accuracy. Israel also claims the operatives installed swarms of explosive drones deep inside Iran to neutralise air defence systems near Tehran. But aside from decapitating Iran's military leadership and missile production facilities, the prime target was the country's nuclear facilities at sites like Natanz and Fordow. Shortly after the attacks, social media showed footage of smoke rising from the uranium-enrichment plant near the city of Natanz about 150 miles south of the capital Tehran. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN watchdog, later confirmed the plant was 'among targets,' adding that it was in contact with Iranian authorities over radiation levels. Read more 'Messianic vision' Israel arming Gaza's crime gangs is certain to backfire badly 'Stakes could not be higher' Poland's election is a pivotal moment for all of Europe Scotland's oldest international medical charity is bringing hope to Himalayas Trump's sledgehammer politics are wreaking havoc in every sphere both home and away For three decades Netanyahu has spoken of the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons which he says poses an 'existential' threat to Israel. Israel has announced that the operation to knock out Iran's nuclear programme is likely to last four or five days. But the fear is that Israel has opened a new phase of war across the Middle East that has seen nearly two years of consistent conflict on a scale not witnessed in decades. Putting aside the fact that an escalation is now inevitable, predicting what will happen next is more tricky. But as Amir Tibon, diplomatic correspondent of the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz has highlighted, three questions will determine the pace and trajectory of events to come. The first of these is just how much damage did Israel's attack inflict? The second is what will be the nature and extent of Iran's retaliation? And finally, and perhaps most significantly, how will America be involved? Regarding the first of these questions, then certainly the killing of Iran's military chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Bagheri, and Maj. Gen Salami as well as several nuclear scientists and destroying swathes of Iran's air defence systems is unprecedented. (Image: People look beyond a barrier toward buildings heavily damaged after an overnight strike in Israel) Regime change Some reports also suggest that Ali Shamkhani, a national security adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, who has oversight of the nuclear programme, was injured. This indicates Israel has struck parts of Iran's political leadership too, signalling that among its objectives may in fact be regime change. Netanyahu suggested as much when on Friday in a speech he told Iranians that he hoped Israel's ongoing military operation will 'clear the path for you to achieve your freedom.' What is certain about the strikes however is that they pile pressure on an Iranian military infrastructure already degraded from previous Israeli strikes. Last year, Israel attacked Iran using air-launched ballistic missiles from far beyond the reach of Iran's most advanced air defences, the Russian supplied S-300 surface to air missiles. These Israeli strikes severely degraded Iran's most advanced air defences, particularly the S-300, and it is not clear what remains. But it's the question of how much damage Israel has been able to inflict on Iran's main nuclear sites that will be uppermost in the minds of the Israeli leadership right now. Israel on Friday said it had struck Natanz and 'damaged' the underground area of the site, a multistorey enrichment area with centrifuges, electrical rooms and other infrastructure. But both of Iran's nuclear facilities have been built to withstand the heaviest of strikes, buried as they are deep below mountains and under dozens of feet of reinforced concrete. Experts have previously estimated that even America's largest 30,000-pound 'bunker-buster' bomb, the GBU-57, which cannot be carried by Israeli warplanes, would need to be used many times on the same point for any significant damage to be done. The US has thus far refused Israeli requests to provide the biggest bomb in its arsenal, but reports last month indicate that the US sent fresh supplies of smaller bunker busting bombs such as the CBU-28 which the Israeli air force is capable of carrying. These may have enabled Israel so far to have targeted the entrances, tunnels and ventilation shafts of Natanz or Fordow in an attempt to put them out of action. Which brings us to the question of Iran's capacity to retaliate. Overnight Friday into Saturday Iran hit back at Israel with retaliatory missile strikes. Israeli paramedics said yesterday that at least three people had been killed and dozens injured by Iran's overnight salvos, with missiles slipping through the country's air defences and destroying buildings in Tel Aviv and Rishon Le Zion. But as The Economist magazine has highlighted, Iran faces few good options in the scale and type of retaliation it can mount. 'If its response is too weak, it will not deter Israel; too strong, and it might draw America into the war. That would only compound the threat to the regime, which has not looked so vulnerable since the 1980s, when it fought a long war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq,' The Economist's assessment concluded, a view shared by other analysts. As it stands, Iran's most likely strategy will be to carry out further attacks using missiles and drones in the hope of depleting Israeli stocks of interceptor missiles and then send in its more advanced and harder-to-shot-down ballistic missiles. (Image: Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu) No secret Israel's resupply of interceptors has become an issue of late. According to a report in the Financial Times (FT), Israel Aerospace Industries, the state-owned company which makes the Arrow interceptors used to shoot down ballistic missiles, said it was having to run triple shifts to keep its production lines running at full tilt, and that it was 'no secret that we (Israel) need to replenish stocks' In the past, any retaliation would have seen Iran turn also to its proxies in the region the most formidable of which was Hezbollah, the Shia militia and political party in Lebanon that had an enormous arsenal on Israel's northern border. But Hezbollah is not the force it once was, weakened by a year of war with Israel, in which its leaders were killed and many of its missile depots destroyed. Where Iran could turn tactically towards are its other proxies in places such as Iraq, mobilising them to attack American bases there or it might be tempted to go after other US installations in the region including in Qatar and Bahrain. All of that though has enormous risks of pulling America fully into the conflict, even if as many argue, Washington as ever is already committed when it comes to defending Israel. Other risky Iranian options - long discussed by regional strategists - might include blocking or disrupting oil exports from the region by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Merchant shipping is still passing through the Strait, but with increased caution. Iran has previously threatened to close this critical trade route through which a quarter of global oil supplies and a third of liquefied natural gas production is transported. Even the suggestion of such a move has already sent shockwaves through global markets, and sent the price of oil soaring, something that doubtless worries the Trump administration that's keen to keep the Gulf monarchs happy. Which brings us to the most significant question of all, as to what America knew about Israel's attack and the likely extent of US involvement in the conflict? To begin with, some observers now believe that the talks between Iran and the US that were scheduled for today in Oman were little more than a ruse, lulling Iran into a false sense of security before Israel struck. Or, to put this another way, while Trump was talking about 'diplomacy' Israel was preparing its onslaught. All the signs were there that Washington knew what was coming say some diplomats and observers. Just over a week ago the US moved some anti-missile defences from Europe to Israel. It then raised threat levels to US citizens, started withdrawing personnel and their families, putting major military bases on standby, and also recently supplying bunker busting bombs such as the CBU-28 to Israel. All this too before Israel's dependence on US intelligence and air defence support. It beggars belief then attest analysts, that team Trump wasn't aware of Israel's real plans. Washington 'knew this was coming, and they helped maintain this fiction that there would be a meeting' on Sunday (today) between Iran's foreign affairs minister Abbas Araghchi and Steve Witkoff, Trump's envoy, said Aaron David Miller, a former US state department negotiator in the Middle East now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'So to that degree, they co-operated with the Israelis in the ruse, and it clearly worked,' Miller added, in an interview with the FT, echoing the views of other Middle East experts. Deception Seen from an Iranian perspective, Trump's talk of giving diplomacy a chance will doubtless now be considered as the deception many now believe it was. In other words, Tehran was lured into a diplomatic trap orchestrated between Israel and the US aimed at blindsiding Iran as to the military operation that Israel had clearly long been planning with Washington's approval. If indeed that perception persists, then it's' unlikely the Iranians will return to the negotiating table any time soon. It signals too that despite so called 'differences' between Netanyahu and Trump, support for Israel in the US body politic remains - as most suspected - as strong as ever. It would also help explain the rush from some Republican politicians to send 'prayers' for Israel, as the bombs fell on Tehran while other less hawkish elements, expressed serious concern over the escalation. For Netanyahu, once regarded as a risk-averse leader, the strike on Tehran is a huge gamble. For Trump meanwhile, a president who campaigned on ending wars, not starting them, it's another arguably ignominious landmark in a shambolic foreign policy strategy. This weekend as the exchange of missile attacks between Israel and Iran intensify, it's hard to ignore the sense that both men are perilously 'gaming' over the fate of the Middle East, and that the region's future is being forged between them.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Wes Streeting: ‘I won't shrink away from opening NHS to private sector'
Wes Streeting has said he will not rule out leaning more heavily on the private sector to cut NHS backlogs. The Health Secretary said he 'refused to be bound by outdated ideological battles', saying using independent hospitals to provide taxpayer-funded care did not contradict the principles of the health service. Writing for The Telegraph, below, he said he would fight for the future of the NHS, warning of a 'national emergency' facing the country. He made the comments as new figures showed that almost 1.4 million people have had private care on the NHS since Labour won the election. They include more than 500,000 patients – more than the population of Liverpool – who have received such treatment since an agreement to 'turbocharge' such efforts was published in January. The deal with the independent sector, announced by Sir Keir Starmer, offers vacant private care appointments to NHS patients while keeping treatment free at the point of use. Officials have pushed the services particularly in parts of the country that have some of the longest waits and lowest levels of private healthcare uptake. The biggest surge in the use of the private sector by the NHS came in the North East and Yorkshire, followed by the South East and North West. Mr Streeting, a survivor of kidney cancer, said the NHS saved his life and he is now fighting to make sure it is there for others. He said: 'Millions are waiting in limbo for treatment that could transform their lives. 'Behind the staggering six million people on waiting lists are real human stories. Parents missing work to care for children in pain. Grandparents unable to play with grandchildren. People forced to take sick days that threaten their livelihoods. This isn't just a statistic – it's a national emergency. 'That's why I refuse to be bound by outdated ideological battles when confronting this crisis. My priority is simple. And in my effort to get there, I won't shrink away from using the independent sector to get NHS patients seen faster.' On Wednesday, the NHS was declared 'the big winner' from the Government's spending review, with a record cash injection of £29 billion a year. Mr Streeting stressed: 'Money alone won't fix this. We need reform too.' The Government is expected to go further in its use of the private sector, as it prepares to draw up a 10-year plan for the NHS, which promises three major shifts – from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from treating sickness to prevention. Mr Streeting said it was 'nonsense' to suggest that using the private sector was at odds with NHS principles. 'What contradicts NHS principles is letting people suffer unnecessarily when capacity exists to treat them. The treatment remains free at the point of use – that's what matters,' he said. The Health Secretary said it was 'ambitious but essential' that the NHS meets its target of ensuring that 92 per cent of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. It has not been achieved since 2015. The independent sector agreement, launched in January this year, is part of an NHS Elective Reform Plan to clear waiting backlogs, especially in the most challenged specialities. 'Going further than New Labour' Before the election, Mr Streeting said a new Labour government would 'go further than New Labour ever did' in use of the private sector for NHS patients. 'If you want to understand my appetite for reform, think New Labour on steroids,' he said in a speech in May 2024. Tony Blair's New Labour government funded a network of 30 private clinics carrying out operations and tests for NHS patients between 2003 and 2010. It also introduced patient choice, allowing patients to opt for care in a private hospital. However, the drive divided the Labour party and lost momentum. Polling from YouGov shows strong support for the Independent Sector agreement, with 70 per cent of the public showing strong support for the NHS using the private sector to clear the backlog. The most common procedures delivered through the independent sector are ophthalmology (23.8 per cent of all treatments), trauma and orthopaedics (20.9 per cent) and dermatology (14.9 per cent). Mark Cubbon, the director of elective care, cancer and diagnostics at NHS England, said: 'Independent sector providers play an important role in supporting NHS efforts to get patients the care they need quicker, with the latest figures showing record numbers of treatments are being carried out. 'NHS use of the private sector has risen significantly since 2021, and our new partnership agreement will help us go even further to widen access to treatment for thousands of patients.' 'Pivotal role in NHS's recovery' David Hare, the chief executive of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network said: 'These figures demonstrate that independent providers are playing a pivotal role in the NHS's elective recovery, helping ensure patients can get the treatment they need – all free at the point of use and paid for at NHS prices. 'But with so much more still to do to once again meet the NHS's 18-week target by March 2029, it's vital that local NHS areas build on this progress and ensure that they make full use of existing and potential capacity in the sector to give patients greater choice and access to the care they need.' Rachel Power, the chief executive of the Patients Association, welcomed the announcement. She said: 'Patients waiting for treatment tell us they feel like their lives are on hold, while facing real hardship, uncertainty and pain.' Analysis from the Independent Health Providers Network has shown that 96 per cent of people in England live within 30 minutes' driving distance of an independent provider that delivers NHS treatment. Using private help contradicts NHS principles? What nonsense By Wes Streeting I know what it's like to sit in a doctor's office and hear the word 'cancer'. The gut punch. The fear. The questions about what happens next – and crucially, how quickly. Yet millions are waiting in limbo for treatment that could transform their lives. Behind the staggering six million people on waiting lists are real human stories. Parents missing work to care for children in pain. Grandparents unable to play with grandchildren. People forced to take sick days that threaten their livelihoods. This isn't just a statistic – it's a national emergency. That's why I refuse to be bound by outdated ideological battles when confronting this crisis. My priority is simple. And in my effort to get there, I won't shrink away from using the independent sector to get NHS patients seen faster. Between January and April alone, over 500,000 people received vital treatments through our partnership with independent healthcare providers – the equivalent of treating the entire population of Liverpool in just four months. These aren't abstract numbers. They're people getting life-changing hip replacements, knee surgeries and cancer treatments. Some ask whether using private capacity contradicts NHS principles. Nonsense. What contradicts NHS principles is letting people suffer unnecessarily when capacity exists to treat them. The treatment remains free at the point of use – that's what matters. The independent healthcare sector won't affect this principle, and so it would be foolish to turn it away when we so desperately need it in certain specialities. But at the same time, we must see it for what it is. The spending review has delivered proper investment in our NHS with nearly £29 billion in additional funding. But money alone won't fix this. We need reform too. The results of our Plan for Change are already showing. Waiting lists have fallen to their lowest level in two years, marking the first April drop since 2008. We're finally heading in the right direction to creating an NHS Fit for Future. Our Plan for Change sets out the clear milestone: meeting the NHS standard where 92 per cent of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. It's ambitious but essential. Cancer taught me that time is precious. When you're waiting for treatment, every day matters. That's why I won't waste a single day, or a single available appointment slot, in our mission to give patients the care they deserve. The NHS saved my life. Now I'm fighting to ensure it's there – on time – to save yours.
