US orders departure of family members and non-emergency US personnel from Lebanon
BEIRUT/ WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department ordered the departure of family members and non-emergency U.S. government personnel from Lebanon citing the volatile security situation in the region, a State Department notice emailed to U.S. citizens in Lebanon showed on Sunday.
The world awaited Iran's response on Sunday after President Donald Trump said the U.S. had "obliterated" Tehran's most sensitive nuclear sites, joining Israel in the biggest Western military action against the Islamic Republic since its 1979 revolution.
The U.S. had last year ordered the departure of family members and non-essential staff during Israel's war in Lebanon that had dealt severe blows to Iran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, but that order was later lifted.
"On June 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of State ordered the departure of family members and non-emergency U.S. government personnel from Lebanon due to the volatile and unpredictable security situation in the region," the State Department said in its notice.
The Israel-Iran war, which began on June 13 with Israeli attacks on Iran, has raised further alarms in a region that was already on edge since the start of Israel's war in Gaza in October 2023.
The U.S. State Department has a "Level 4: Do Not Travel" advisory for Lebanon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
With the US strikes on Iran, the old international order is under threat
SIR – Will the American bombing of Iran lead to another Iraq-style conflict? It is certainly a major breach of the rules-based international order which has largely prevailed since 1945. No doubt Donald Trump and his apologists will continue to justify what has happened. However, it is clear that if there is to be any hope of a return to a better settlement of world affairs then work towards this must start now. At least three things need to happen: a major reconstitution and strengthening of the United Nations (especially in relation to the Security Council); the recommitment by its originators to the 1941 Atlantic Charter; and serious talks on universal nuclear disarmament. Things certainly cannot go on as they are. Andrew McLuskey Ashford, Middlesex SIR – A few days ago, Sir Keir Starmer was adamant that Donald Trump would not get involved in Iran. The US president, along with Israel, has now taken a vital step towards long-term peace in dealing a blow to the nuclear capabilities of the primary sponsor of global terrorism. Now that our Prime Minister has demonstrated his irrelevance on the world stage, let him concentrate on making our country secure. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be proscribed, hate marches in our capital should be prevented and the small boats should be turned back to France. Tim Coles Carlton, Bedfordshire SIR – In light of the bombing of Iran's key nuclear sites, Sir Keir Starmer shows himself to be naive at best when claiming that the Chagos treaty his Government negotiated guarantees the effectiveness of the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia for the next 100 years. As a reminder, Annex 1 section 2 of the treaty states '... the United Kingdom agrees to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia'. Had the B-2s been deployed from Diego Garcia it stands to reason that Mauritius would have instantly warned Iran, one of their key regional allies, of the imminence of the military operation, thus gravely jeopardising its success. Jean Maigrot London SW6 SIR – The protesters who sprayed red paint on the engine of a RAF refuelling aircraft (report, June 22) deserve our sincere thanks. At a stroke, they have revealed the sheer inadequacy of the security of Brize Norton airbase. Having regard to current world events, including the destruction of so many aircraft across Russia, and the situation in the Middle East, the lack of effective security is truly mind-blowing. One can only hope that this warning leads to immediate and effective action across all our Armed Forces everywhere. Jonathan Fogg Loulé, Algarve, Portugal
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Why Trump bombed Iran
The US has joined Israel in its attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. Michael Safi hears from reporter Hugo Lowell and world affairs correspondent Andrew Roth on what happens now
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Did Trump's strike pay off? New images show Iran's nuclear ambitions in ruins
US strikes on Iran may have set the country's nuclear programme back by several years, according to preliminary expert analysis. Donald Trump's claims that Iran's nuclear sites had been 'completely and totally obliterated' were likely to be an overstatement, serving and former US military officials said – but it is probable that all three facilities targeted suffered extensive damage. Under best-case assessments, Iran's capacity to enrich uranium has been severely degraded, if not destroyed. However, the country's existing stockpiles of uranium enriched to near weapons grade – enough to fuel 10 nuclear bombs – is thought to have survived. Understanding the extent to which the US has damaged Iran's nuclear programme is a vital in determining whether the strikes were a one-off or merely the opening salvo of a wider conflict US B-2 stealth bombers and cruise missiles struck Iran's three most important nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. If the strikes succeeded in destroying centrifuge halls at the facilities, they would prevent Iran from further enriching its uranium stockpiles to a purity of 90 per cent – something it has not done so far, according to UN inspectors. Satellite images of convoys leaving all three sites in recent days support Iran's claims that it moved its 400-kg stockpile – much of it previously held at Isfahan – to a secret underground location shortly before the strikes. Even if that were the case, however, the damage inflicted elsewhere would still make it difficult to turn the uranium into a bomb. Even if Iran had retained its fissile material, it would be 'like having fuel without a car,' said Ronen Solomon, an Israeli intelligence analyst. 'They have the uranium – but they can't do a lot with it, unless they have built something we don't know about on a small scale.' That is not beyond the realm of possibility. Iran succeeded in keeping its Fordow facility a secret for seven years before it was dramatically exposed, by Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy – then the leaders of the US, UK and France – at a joint press conference in 2009, following a joint intelligence operation. Fordow Of the three sites attacked, Fordow was by far the most important. The last-known site developed by the Iranians was deliberately designed to withstand aerial attack. An 'engineering marvel', in the words of one Western official, its main centrifuge halls lie buried up to half a mile inside a mountain. Not only does a layer of solid rock act as a natural shield impervious to most bombs, but additional artificial layers of reinforcement are also believed to have been added. The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker-busting bomb – 12 of which the US dropped on Fordow – is capable of penetrating 60 metres of standard concrete before exploding. But Iran is believed to have reinforced the centrifuge halls at Fordow with ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), which can withstand six times the amount of pressure of normal concrete – up to 30,000-lb per square inch. If Iran used the best quality UHPC, Fordow would have been significantly harder to destroy. Given that the site is underground, it remains difficult to assess the scale of the damage yet, with both Iranian and US officials saying they are still conducting evaluations. Natanz Above-ground facilities at Natanz, Iran's largest enrichment site, had already been damaged by extensive Israeli strikes, as shown by satellite imagery. The destruction of the site's electric substation may have knocked out power, potentially damaging centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog. Natanz also housed an underground centrifuge hall thought to have been the target of two US bunker-busters. The site was additionally struck by cruise missiles fired by a US submarine in the Arabian Sea. Isfahan Much of Iran's mostly highly enriched uranium is thought to have been stored at the nuclear research and production centre near the city of Isfahan, the ancient capital of Safavid Persia. International inspectors verified the fuel was there a fortnight ago, but satellite imagery suggests Iran may have moved it in recent days. Israel had previously struck laboratories and three other buildings at the facility. The US did not use bunker-busters on Isfahan – which is thought to be mostly above ground – and instead attacked with cruise missiles. The strikes are thought to have damaged six additional buildings, including a fuel rod production facility. Overall assessment A fuller picture of overall damage may emerge in the coming days, with experts urging caution about attaching too much credibility to the US president's more optimistic pronouncements or to Iran's defiant claims that its nuclear capacity remains largely intact. Clionadh Raleigh, head of the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a conflict-monitoring group, warned that although the strikes might alter the timeline of Iran's nuclear programme, they would do little to alter its ultimate trajectory. 'The regime's broader power and intentions are likely to remain intact,' said Ms Raleigh. 'Iran's military and intelligence systems are designed and built to survive. The structure is deeply layered and resistant to collapse. Even if key infrastructure is destroyed, the system adapts – and in some cases, becomes more dangerous in the process. 'There's no evidence that the strikes will permanently end Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities. What they may do is shift the timeline.' Others were less cautious. Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official who served in the first Trump administration, told the New York Times that the US strikes will 'likely set back the Iranian nuclear programme two to five years' – an assessment shared by Jason Brodsky of United Against a Nuclear Iran, a US-based pressure group. The setback stems not only from the strikes themselves. Repairing the damage will be far harder following the assassination of more than a dozen nuclear scientists in the past 10 days, Israeli officials said. 'Several of the eliminated scientists had spent decades advancing nuclear weapons, constituting a significant part of the Iranian regime's plans to annihilate the State of Israel,' one official said. 'These scientists had diverse professional expertise and extensive experience.'
