At least 20,000 flee insurgency-hit town in Nigeria, governor says

Borno state governor Babagana Zulum visited Marte, which is close to the border with Cameroon, to assess the security situation and meet military officials there.
Borno state has witnessed an upsurge in attacks by suspected Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) assailants this year, raising concerns that the militants are making gains again after years of intense attacks by the military.
By Ahmed Kingimi MAIDUGURI, Nigeria (Reuters) -At least 20,000 people have fled Marte town following increasing attacks by Islamist militants in Nigeria's northeastern Borno state, its governor has said, four years after residents returned to the town that was once controlled by insurgents.
His visit followed a raid on Marte's army base last week in which militants temporarily overran the installation. At least five soldiers were killed and others went missing in the attack.
'Marte was resettled about four years ago, but unfortunately, over the last three days, it was ransacked and was displaced again,' Zulum told reporters on Sunday.
'About 20,000 people left Marte for Dikwa (town).'
Zulum, who also visited Rann, another town where an army base was attacked last week, will on Monday head to Kalawa Balge district where 23 farmers were killed by suspected militants.
At least two million people have been displaced and thousands killed by the insurgency in Nigeria in the last 16 years, according to humanitarian groups.
Zulum's state government resettled residents in Marte as part of a programme to shut camps for Internally Displaced Persons in Borno capital Maiduguri and upheld the plan as a model for other towns previously controlled by insurgents.
But many Marte residents now fear that their lives could be upended again if attacks continue.
Boko Haram and Islamic State-backed ISWAP have been adapting their tactics, including using drones for surveillance, security analysts and the military say.
Zulum said leaving residents to live in a camp in Dikwa town was a big threat as it would leave young men 'vulnerable to recruitment by insurgents.'
(Writing by MacDonald Dzirutwe, Editing by William Maclean)
Disclaimer: This report is auto generated from the Reuters news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

30 minutes ago

• Time of India

What are the nuclear contamination risks from attacks on Iran?

President Trump announced U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordow, joining earlier Israeli attacks. Experts suggest limited contamination risks from strikes on uranium enrichment facilities, mainly chemical rather than radiological. Gulf states are especially concerned about potential contamination of desalinated water sources if the Bushehr reactor is hit, prompting high alert and emergency plans. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads WHICH IRANIAN NUCLEAR SITES HAVE BEEN HIT SO FAR? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads WHAT RISKS DO THESE STRIKES POSE? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR REACTORS? WHY ARE GULF STATES ESPECIALLY WORRIED? President Donald Trump said Iran's main nuclear sites had been "obliterated" in military strikes overnight, including on the deeply buried Fordow facility, as the U.S. joined attacks launched by Israel on June have said military strikes on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities pose limited risks of contamination, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Sunday no increased off-site radiation levels had been reported following the U.S. U.S. military struck sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Trump said Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been "completely and totally obliterated". The attacks follow previously announced Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran says it aims to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb and the U.S. says Tehran would not be allowed to get such weapons. Iran denies ever seeking nuclear international nuclear watchdog IAEA has previously reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, the nuclear complex at Isfahan that includes the Uranium Conversion Facility and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and has also attacked Arak, also known as Khondab. The IAEA said Israeli military strikes hit the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, which was under construction and had not begun operating, and damaged the nearby plant that makes heavy IAEA said it was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so there were no radiological effects. Heavy-water reactors can be used to produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make an atom to Reuters before the U.S. strikes took place, experts said Israel's attacks had posed limited contamination risks so Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think-tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern."When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely. The risk of harmful chemicals being dispersed is lower for underground facilities."Simon Bennett, who leads the civil safety and security unit at the University of Leicester in Britain, said risks to the environment were minimal when subterranean facilities are hit because you are "burying nuclear material in possibly thousands of tonnes of concrete, earth and rock".James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive," he on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences", he said, while stating his opposition to Israel's major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Gulf of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on June 19 when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr, only to say later that the announcement was a says it wants to avoid any nuclear Wakeford, honorary professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story".Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe".For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is on high alert to monitor for any possible environmental contamination after the attacks, said a source with knowledge of the matter. There have been no signs of radiological contamination so far, the source said, adding that the GCC had emergency plans in place in case of a threat to water and food security in the the United Arab Emirates, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, authorities is also 100% dependent on desalinated Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for some Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE have access to more than one sea to draw water from, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline."If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, professor of engineering and director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center."Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.

First Post

33 minutes ago

• First Post

Why Trump attacked Iran 2 days after giving a 2-week deadline

Amid the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, Donald Trump on Thursday said that he would decide in two weeks whether to order a US strike on Tehran. However, two days after this announcement, he shocked one and all by targeting three nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic. What made him rush? read more A banner bearing a picture of US President Donald Trump accompanied by a message, is displayed in Tel Aviv. President Donald Trump said the US military carried out strikes on June 22 on three Iranian nuclear sites and that Tehran "must now agree to end this war". AFP He did it. He actually did it. On Sunday (June 22), US President Donald Trump addressed the world from the White House announcing that the US military had struck three nuclear sites in Iran, adding that the facilities had 'been completely and totally obliterated'. 'Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success,' he said, adding, 'Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Catch all live updates from US joining Israel war against Iran here He further added, 'Now is the time for peace.' Notably, Trump's attacks on Iran comes just two days after he had announced that he would give Iran's leaders two week's time to negotiate. So, what happened between Thursday and Saturday for the US president to change his mind? Trump's 2-week deadline to Iran Amid escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, on Thursday (June 19), the US president said that he would decide 'within the next two weeks ' on whether to order a US military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. '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,' Trump said in a statement read to reporters by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. When asked about providing Iran time, the US president told a reporter on Friday that he was giving Iranians time to 'come to their senses'. When a reporter further probed, 'Does Iran have two weeks or could you strike before that? Are you essentially giving them a two-week timeline?' Trump answered, 'Well I'm giving them a period of time. We're going to see what that period of time is. But I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum.' People stand in front of a Fox News ticker that displays a headline about US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, in New York City. Reuters Trump's surprise attack on Iran However, two days after announcing a two-week deadline, Trump launched military strikes on Iran, targeting Fordow , Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites in Iran. In an address to the nation, Trump said, 'The strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' In a speech that lasted just over three minutes, Trump said Iran's future held 'either peace or tragedy,' and there were many other targets that could be hit by the US military. 'If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He later told Fox News that that six bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordow, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against other nuclear sites. US B-2 bombers were also involved in the strikes, a US official told Reuters. Following the strikes, Iran expressed anger, with the Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warning of 'everlasting consequences' and adding, 'US decided to blow up diplomacy with strikes.' He also wrote on X, 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. 'Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Why Trump changed his mind But what led Trump from changing his mind? Why did he attack Iran within two days when he had announced that he would give Tehran two weeks? As one administration official told the Wall Street Journal, 'The goal was to create a situation when everyone wasn't expecting it.' A billboard with an illustration of Iranians supporting their country is seen on a street, amid the Israel-Iran conflict, in Tehran, Iran. Reuters In fact, Trump on Tuesday (June 17) had approved plans to strike Iran but had withheld on that order, giving time to assess once more if Iran would be willing to entirely end its enrichment of nuclear fuel. 'There was real debate earlier in the week about what we should do,' the senior official is quoted as telling Wall Street Journal. 'But Trump signalled on Tuesday he was leaning toward going forward, so that changed everything.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Moreover, Trump was reportedly impressed by the success of Israel's offensiv e, named Operation Rising Lion. The Jewish nation's strikes have eroded Iran's air-defence capability with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling Kan public broadcaster that Israeli forces had destroyed at least half of Iran's missile launchers and even eliminated key military leaders. The Atlantic speaking to an ally of the president said that Trump believed that a 'little push from us would make it incredibly successful'. Iran's position in negotiations could also be another reason why Trump chose to forego his two-week deadline to strike Tehran. Trump had dismissed the talks held in Geneva last Friday between European diplomats and Iran's Abbas Araghchi. 'They didn't help,' Trump said of the discussions. 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one.' Trump is also wary of his own administration's evaluation of Iran's nuclear abilities, namely with Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard . Earlier in March, Gabbard had told US Congress that Iran was not 'building' a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD When asked about this, Trump had said, 'She's wrong.' Protesters hold placards showing a caricature of US President Donald Trump as they condemn the US attacks on Iran during a protest against the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran in Seoul. AFP Jared Mondschein, director of research at the United States Studies Centre, also offered one reason as to why Trump fast-forwarded his actions in Iran. Speaking to Sky News, he said that Trump's decision to order attacks on Iran may have been influenced by what happened when North Korea acquired nuclear weapons. Explaining further, he said: 'We have to look at what happened in North Korea, how the George W Bush administration said that a nuclear North Korea would be unacceptable, and they ultimately decided that it was not in their interest to prevent North Korea from becoming nuclear. 'And now we have a stalemate in the region.' Mondschein further elaborated: 'With that said, what you see here in Iran is an expansionist country that has proxy militias around the region, unlike North Korea, and those proxies were a security threat, to both the United States and Israel. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We shouldn't forget the number of Americans, both in the military and civilians, who have been targeted by Iran. Let's also not forget how many Americans have been targeted by the Iranian government.' With inputs from agencies

The Hindu

an hour ago

• The Hindu

What are the nuclear contamination risks from attacks on Iran: Explained

President Donald Trump said Iran's main nuclear sites had been "obliterated" in military strikes overnight, including on the deeply buried Fordow facility, as the U.S. joined attacks launched by Israel on June 13. Experts have said military strikes on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities pose limited risks of contamination, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Sunday (June 22, 2025) no increased off-site radiation levels had been reported following the U.S. attacks. U.S. strikes Iranian nuclear facilities LIVE updates Which Iranian nuclear sites have been hit so far? The U.S. military struck sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Trump said Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been "completely and totally obliterated". The attacks follow previously announced Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb and the U.S. says Tehran would not be allowed to get such weapons. Iran denies ever seeking nuclear arms. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has previously reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, the nuclear complex at Isfahan that includes the Uranium Conversion Facility and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel has also attacked Arak, also known as Khondab. The IAEA said Israeli military strikes hit the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, which was under construction and had not begun operating, and damaged the nearby plant that makes heavy water. The IAEA said it was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so there were no radiological effects. Heavy-water reactors can be used to produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make an atom bomb. What risks do these strikes pose? Speaking to Reuters before the U.S. strikes took place, experts said Israel's attacks had posed limited contamination risks so far. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think-tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely. The risk of harmful chemicals being dispersed is lower for underground facilities." Simon Bennett, who leads the civil safety and security unit at the University of Leicester in Britain, said risks to the environment were minimal when subterranean facilities are hit because you are "burying nuclear material in possibly thousands of tonnes of concrete, earth and rock". James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive," he added. Attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences", he said, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. What about nuclear reactors? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Gulf coast. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on June 19 when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr, only to say later that the announcement was a mistake. Israel says it wants to avoid any nuclear disaster. Richard Wakeford, honorary professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe". Why are Gulf states especially worried? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is on high alert to monitor for any possible environmental contamination after the attacks, said a source with knowledge of the matter. There have been no signs of radiological contamination so far, the source said, adding that the GCC had emergency plans in place in case of a threat to water and food security in the Gulf. In the United Arab Emirates, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, authorities say. Qatar is also 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE have access to more than one sea to draw water from, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, professor of engineering and director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.