Israel threatens Iran's top leader after missiles damage hospital and wound 200

Meanwhile, Israel struck a heavy water reactor that is part of Iran's nuclear programme.
At least 240 people were wounded by the Iranian missiles, four of them seriously, according to Israel's health ministry.
The vast majority were lightly wounded, including more than 70 people from the Soroka Medical Centre in the southern city of Beersheba, where smoke rose as emergency teams evacuated patients.
In the aftermath of the strikes, Israeli defence minister Israel Katz blamed Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and said the military 'has been instructed and knows that in order to achieve all of its goals, this man absolutely should not continue to exist'.
US officials said this week that US president Donald Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Mr Khamenei. Mr Trump later said there were no plans to kill him 'at least not for now'.
Israel carried out strikes on Iran's Arak heavy water reactor, in its latest attack on the country's sprawling nuclear programme, on the seventh day of a conflict that began with a surprise wave of Israeli airstrikes targeting military sites, senior officers and nuclear scientists.
A Washington-based Iranian human rights group said at least 639 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 1,300 wounded.
In retaliation, Iran has fired some 400 missiles and hundreds of drones, killing at least 24 people in Israel and wounding hundreds.
Two doctors told The Associated Press that the missile struck almost immediately after air raid sirens went off, causing a loud explosion that could be heard from a safe room.
The hospital said the main impact was on an old surgery building that had been evacuated in recent days. After the strike, the medical facility was closed to all patients except for life-threatening cases, it said.
Soroka has more than 1,000 beds and provides services to around one million residents in the south of Israel.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the strike on the hospital and vowed a response, saying: 'We will exact the full price from the tyrants in Tehran.'
Iran has fired hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel, although most have been shot down by Israel's multi-tiered air defences, which detect incoming fire and shoot down missiles heading towards population centres and critical infrastructure. Israeli officials acknowledge it is imperfect.
Haim Bublil, a local police commander, told reporters that several people were lightly wounded in the strike.
Many hospitals in Israel activated emergency plans in the past week, converting underground parking to hospital floors and moving patients underground, especially those who are on ventilators or are difficult to move quickly.
Israel also boasts a fortified, subterranean blood bank that kicked into action after Hamas's October 7 2023 attack ignited the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip.
Israel's military said its fighter jets targeted the Arak facility and its reactor core seal to halt it from being used to produce plutonium.
'The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development,' the military said.
Israel separately claimed to have struck another site around Natanz it described as being related to Iran's nuclear programme.
Iranian state TV said there was 'no radiation danger whatsoever' from the attack on the Arak site.
An Iranian state television reporter, speaking live in the nearby town of Khondab, said the facility had been evacuated and there was no damage to civilian areas around the reactor.
Israel had warned earlier on Thursday morning that it would attack the facility and urged the public to flee the area.
Iran has long maintained its programme is for peaceful purposes. But it also enriches uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich at that level.
Israel is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East but does not acknowledge having such weapons.
The strikes came a day after Iran's supreme leader rejected US calls for surrender and warned that any military involvement by the Americans would cause 'irreparable damage to them'. Israel had lifted some restrictions on daily life on Wednesday, suggesting the missile threat from Iran on its territory was easing.
Already, Israel's campaign has targeted Iran's enrichment site at Natanz, centrifuge workshops around Tehran and a nuclear site in Isfahan. Its strikes have also killed top generals and nuclear scientists.
Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said he would travel to Geneva for meetings with his European counterparts on Friday, indicating that a new diplomatic initiative might be taking shape.
Iran's official IRNA news agency said the meeting would include foreign ministers from the UK, France and Germany and the European Union's top diplomat.
Mr Trump has said he wants something 'much bigger' than a ceasefire and has not ruled out the US joining Israel's campaign. Iran has warned of dire consequences if the US deepens its involvement, without elaborating.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Glasgow Times

22 minutes ago

• Glasgow Times

I was 28 when I was diagnosed, you are never to young for cancer

Lauren McNulty from Kirkintilloch was diagnosed in February 2022 at just 28 years old. She experienced symptoms including pelvic pain, heavy bleeding, and abnormal smear test results. (Image: Beatson Cancer Charity) The 31-year-old then underwent weeks of intensive treatment at The Beatson, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and internal radiation treatments. She will climb Ben Nevis on June 28 to raise money for the Beatson Cancer Charity. Read more: 300 jobs at risk as London-based firm moves Scottish Power contract to South Africa Pledge to prevent women fleeing domestic abuse becoming homeless Readers can subscribe for just £4 for 4 months in this flash sale Ms McNulty said: "I had all my treatment at the Beatson. "It's an incredible place - uplifting, compassionate, and full of brilliant people. (Image: Beatson Cancer Charity) "It means so much to now be strong enough to take on something like Ben Nevis, especially when I remember how exhausted I used to feel just walking from the car to the radiotherapy department." Since finishing treatment, Ms McNulty has gradually rebuilt her strength. She joined a walking group, began strength training at the gym, and slowly pushed herself further outdoors. (Image: Beatson Cancer Charity) Now she hopes her mountain climb will highlight Cervical Screening Awareness Week, which runs from June 19 to 24, and will encourage more women to attend their cervical screening appointments. She said: "To go from struggling to walk up stairs to now climbing Ben Nevis—this is huge for me. "It's emotional and empowering. "I was only 28 when I was diagnosed. "You're never too young for cervical cancer, and changes in your body can happen at any age. "That smear test might feel uncomfortable or inconvenient, but it can catch things early." Chloe Coghill, community fundraiser at Beatson Cancer Charity, said: "Lauren is an inspiration to us all. "Her strength, determination, and willingness to share her story during Cervical Screening Awareness Week will help so many others understand the importance of regular screening. "We're incredibly proud to have her support and are cheering her on every step of the way as she takes on Ben Nevis in honour of The Beatson and everyone affected by cancer."

Scotsman

28 minutes ago

• Scotsman

Regime change in Iran? Be careful what you wish for

Getty Images History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Ten years ago, in a very different world, the SNP was adapting to life as Westminster's third party and the resulting new responsibilities. The EU Referendum Bill was still rattling its way through Parliament, with the mayhem it unleashed yet to come. As the SNP's first member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was working with colleagues as then Prime Minister David Cameron mulled the expansion of air strikes against Daesh. The so-called Islamic State had unleashed a wave of horrifying violence across the region that they were publicising through social media channels. The Committee had investigated the implications of any such military action taking evidence from a range of actors and experts in the UK and region. The proposed action was one of extending UK airstrikes from Iraq, where the RAF was already in action against Daesh, across the border into Syria. That would have meant the UK joining other states, as well as countless armed groups, in becoming a participant, however limited, in the ongoing conflicts across Syria. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Comparatively this was a modest proposal. Daesh was not a state actor, the UK was already involved in military action against them and there was unanimity around wanting to see an end to Daesh's murderous reign. However, there was reluctance across Parliament to sanction intervention. Even in 2015, the implications of the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hung heavy over MPs, mindful of the consequences of the Iraq war, pursued by a Labour Prime Minister, that had led to regional destabilisation, an undermining of the international rules-based system and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the subsequent civil war. There were also the more recent consequences of 'regime change' in Libya where a Conservative Prime Minister had sanctioned action that led to the fall of Colonel Qaddafi's administration. Many of the mistakes that had been made on the run up to Iraq were repeated in the Franco-British led actions in Libya. The consequences of those mistakes were again felt most keenly by the innocent civilians. Given that recent history our Committee was asked to come up with a set of criteria for the House to consider ahead of the vote. Our report, written by the very talented team of clerks who assisted us, was published in November 2015. It bears re- reading today especially the short, one page section 'Enabling the House to reach a decision' that effectively provides a 'check list' for war. When teaching first years at the University of St Andrews I used to ask them to read the report, and if not the whole thing, then that one-page provided a good cheat sheet of what policy makers should look for when considering whether to sanction military intervention. It is as useful a read today as it was then. Some of the questions around international law, the role of ground troops, agreement of regional actors and the overall strategic goals meant that the Committee could not, initially, agree military action. Today as Trump considers action, and the UK is coming under pressure, I feel that the questions we posed then are relevant today and again have not been answered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Don't get me wrong, the Iranian regime is deeply unpleasant, threatening its neighbours, murdering opponents and oppressing its citizens. The same was true for the regimes in Tripoli and Baghdad. Furthermore a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for the region and the rest of the world. Iran has absolutely no problem in visiting death and destruction on its citizens and neighbours including providing an arsenal for Russia and the drones that target families in their homes in Ukraine. An Iran that respects international law has huge potential as I saw for myself in 2015 when the Committee visited. Sitting around the table in the British Embassy where Churchill had celebrated his 65 th birthday with Stalin and Roosevelt during the Tehran Conference in 1943, the British chargé d'affairs and other senior diplomats updated us on the progress with the JCPOA diplomatic negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. They were clearly making some progress until Trump brought them to an end. We were also briefed, and could see for ourselves, the economic potential of the country where ordinary Iranians were keen to rejoin the international mainstream. Iran is a complex and deeply diverse country of well over 90 million a critical part of the world. Any war and upheaval in the country would have massive implications for us all. It could also further destabilise the Middle East convulsed by the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israeli actions in Gaza and the years of war in Syria. Over the next few days Donald Trump is considering joining Israel's military action against Iran. For now, Keir Starmer is calling for a diplomatic solution, joining President Macron, who mindful of past failures such as in Libya, warned 'the biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos'. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and no friend of Iran, Kaja Kallas also remarked that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons but that 'lasting security is built through diplomacy, not military action'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, pressure could well be brought to bear on the British by the White House. The lessons of Iraq and Libya hung heavy over MPs ten years ago. As the situation in the Middle East evolves rapidly, those lessons seem as pertinent today as they did then. Like then, we shouldn't recommend war and regime change without answering the questions we posed a decade ago. History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians.

New Statesman​

30 minutes ago

• New Statesman​

The left is rallying against war with Iran

Photo byAll eyes are on the White House, as the conflict between Iran and Israel enters its second week. Donald Trump has yet to commit to direct American involvement, telling reporters he would decide in the next two weeks. When he does, Keir Starmer will need to make a decision. Will the UK fall in behind its allies (the US and Israel) or will it keep its distance? This is an extremely delicate situation. The UK would be on difficult legal ground if it did get directly involved militarily, as it has not been directly attacked, nor have any of its Nato allies. Equally, it would not be in the country's interests to see an Iranian escalation which threatened shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, or the UK's military bases in Cyprus. Though Starmer has yet to make his position plain – he has repeated his assertion that this is a 'fast-moving situation' – whichever decision he takes is likely to lead to political friction. Inside the Labour Party, it already is. Though the UK is not directly involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, the same criticisms which have plagued the government on the ongoing war in Gaza have been applied here. Britain continues to technically supply arms to Israel through the F45 fighter jet programme and its belated sanctioning of far-right members of the Israeli government (Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich received sanctions last week) has been widely criticised. Increased UK involvement in the Middle East could lead to an escalation of these criticisms from the left, both within and outside of the Labour party. The potential for active UK involvement in the war in the Middle East is not likely to sit well with some Labour MPs. The scars of the Iraq war run deep among Labour politicians and party members. One backbench MP was clear: there are a lot of people in the Labour party who would not want to go to war in Iran. And while they said that while this is mostly concentrated among the old guard of MPs (those elected pre-2024), members of the new intake share their apprehension. The MP added that this concern could even stretch to the Cabinet, and that it would be better for Starmer to align the UK with its European partners and Canada, rather than remain at the beck-and-call of Trump and the US. Today Emmanuel Macron announced a European proposal to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. 'Britain has to have a recalibration of who they're dealing with,' the MP said. How Starmer deals with this conflict is also being watched closely by the leftward coalition which is forming outside the party. Among this broad extra-parliamentary group there is agreement that the UK must not be led into this conflict to serve US interests. Today (21 June), the Palestine Solidarity Campaign will stage a march from Russell Square to Westminster, with speakers including the Independent (former Labour) MP Zarah Sultana and Paloma Faith. Jeremy Corbyn and Zack Polanski will also be in attendance. This group is of course, dead against any direct UK involvement in the conflict. Corbyn told me, 'The last Labour government made the mistake of following the US into a catastrophic war and refusing to build its own, independent, ethical foreign policy. Human beings abroad paid the price.' The former Labour leader, who recently brought a 10-minute rule bill calling for an independent inquiry into the UK's involvement in Gaza, called on the government 'to learn the lessons of the past, otherwise it will be remembered for the less secure and less peaceful world it has helped to create'. His sentiments were similarly echoed by the Green Party deputy leader, and candidate for party leadership, Zack Polanski, who said: 'Starmer claims to support de-escalation – yet continues to back a government committing genocide in Gaza, arms its military, shares intelligence, and now refuses to rule out dragging us into another catastrophic war.' Polanski, who has said he thinks the UK should withdraw from Nato, similarly pointed to the lessons of history on this. He added: 'We saw in 2003 what happens when a prime minister chooses loyalty to an American president over the will of the British people. They must learn from that shameful chapter in history.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Privately, though, there is concern from those who are sympathetic to Gaza on the left that this escalation could only lead to more polarisation. Prior to Israel's strikes on Iran – and Iran's retaliation – it felt as though opinion on Gaza was on the cusp of a turning point, with more MPs feeling able to speak out about what they saw as indiscriminate Israeli aggression. This new stage of the conflict opens up a new attack-line. As Corbyn, Polanski, or other pro-Gaza MPs and politicians call for the end of arms sales to Israel, the worry is that critics will fire back that these MPs would leave Israel defenceless from Iran. None of this puts the Prime Minister in an easy position. Starmer has already received extensive criticism for being slow to act on sanctions and arms sales. If he commits to more UK involvement in this growing conflict, it will open him up to even further attacks from the left (and could even run the risk of more Labour losses to the Gaza independents or an equivalent organised party in 2029). Memories of Iraq, and the political damage that terrible conflict wrought on the Labour party have certainly not dissipated; the left are keen that no one forgets. [See also: The dangerous new neoconservatism] Related