Iranian strike in Israel injures at least 23, emergency officials say
An Iranian missile strike on Friday wounded 23 people in the northern part of Israel, emergency services Magen David Adom said, as the two countries continued exchanging more strikes.
Three were seriously injured, including a 16-year-old boy, who suffered shrapnel wounds to his upper body, MDA said. Two others – a 40-year-old and a 54-year-old man – had shrapnel wounds on their legs, and one woman had a heart attack while sheltering and died, paramedics said.
An Israeli military official said Iran had fired approximately 20 missiles at Israel in the attack, which came as a diplomatic effort to negotiate a settlement to the conflict began in Geneva between European foreign ministers and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Ahead of the meeting, Araghchi said his country has "nothing to discuss" with the United States as long as Israel continues its strikes on Iran, but is open to "dialogue" with others, though not negotiations.
After several hours of talks, Britain's foreign secretary, David Lammy, said that the Europeans are "keen to continue ongoing discussions and negotiations with Iran." He said the Europeans were clear in talks in Geneva that Iran "cannot have a nuclear weapon." Araghchi also said Iran was interested in continuing discussions.
"Iran is ready to consider diplomacy once again," he said, adding, "I stress that Iran's defense capabilities are not negotiable. (But) I express our readiness to meet again in the near future."
President Trump said Friday afternoon "we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we're going to see what happens." As he left Washington for his Bedminster club, the president told reporters it would be "very hard right now" to request that Israel pause its offensive against Iran to allow a deal to be negotiated, as Iran has demanded. "If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing."
Earlier Friday morning, Israel's military said it carried out strikes on 25 military and nuclear targets in Iran. The Israel Defense Forces said 60 jets were used in the strikes.
An Iranian missile also hit the southern Israeli city of Be'er Sheva Friday morning.
The week of war between Israel and Iran has killed at least 657 people, including 263 civilians, in Iran, the Washington-based group Health Rights Activist told the AP. At least 24 people in Israel have been killed, Israeli officials say.
As tensions with Iran intensified, Israel continued its strikes in Gaza over the last day, with at least 42 people killed on Friday. The Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza said 23 of the people killed were seeking humanitarian aid.
No humanitarian aid has entered the Gaza Strip, where the UN has said the entire population faces the risk of starvation, for 48 hours.
SpaceX Starship upper stage blows up
Hurricane Erick approaches Mexico with destructive winds, major storm surge
"Jaws" premiered 50 years ago, but it's a wonder it got made at all
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration: international students will face strict social media review
WASHINGTON — International students applying for visas to study in the United States will be subjected to stricter social media screening moving forward, the Trump administration says. Their entire online presence will be reviewed, including their social media media activity, during the visa application process for indications of hostility toward the country's citizens, culture, government, institutions and democratic principles. The State Department announced the policy on June 18, following the release of leaked guidance in May that signaled the changes were coming. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told embassies then about the enhanced social media vetting protocols, as he halted new student visa application interviews. The added screening initially affected students who applied to Harvard, which the administration has been fighting with over allegations of antisemitism. But in a message outlining the new screening measures that was obtained by multiple outlets in late May, Rubio said the review process was intended serve as a pilot program. At the time, the State Department told USA TODAY it had required visa applicants to provide social media identifiers since 2019 and that it continuously vets all visa holders for the duration of their stay. In a statement announcing the resumption of student visa interviews and the new online screening policy on June 18, the State Department said that under new guidance, consular officers will be conducting a comprehensive and thorough vetting of all student and exchange visitor applicants. Visa applicants who fall under these guidelines will be asked to make their social media profiles to public. Failing to do could be interpretated as an intent to hide activity or evade the policy and could lead to rejection, the administration signaled. The Trump administration previously yanked, and then reinstated, visas at an array of universities for more than 4,700 students this spring. The removal of their visas had sparked more than 100 lawsuits and many visa cancellations were blocked in court. The Trump administration has been aggressively introducing visa restrictions — fully or partially barring travelers to the United States from 19 countries, students from China and foreign nationals seeking to study at or visit Harvard over the last month. A judge has since stopped the administration from blocking Harvard's ability to enroll international students. The travel restrictions went into effect on June 9. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Foreign students will face stricter social media screening, U.S. says
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he's close to striking a deal with Harvard
WASHINGTON – In an abrupt shift, President Donald Trump has signaled that his monthslong pressure campaign against Harvard University could be nearing an end. In a social media post on June 20, he said his administration is "working closely" with Harvard officials, who have "acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right." "It is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so," Trump said. He used the term "Settlement" when describing a potential resolution, appearing to indicate the detente could sort out Harvard's pending lawsuits against the federal government. Trump's comments follow a string of legal wins for Harvard's leaders, who vowed in April to fight back against what many onlookers in higher education have described as unprecedented interference by the federal government in a campus's affairs. Read more: Trump-Harvard clash heats up. Here's what to know. The Trump administration has frozen billions of dollars of Harvard's federal funding, launched a review of the school's tax-exempt status and attempted to prevent the university from enrolling international students, who make up a third of its student population. The White House says it has taken those actions in large part to force Harvard to better curb antisemitism on campus. Critics say that rationale doesn't reflect the massive changes in hiring, teaching and admissions the administration has tried to impose on the Ivy League school. Read more: Trump administration: international students will face strict social media review Mere hours after the university filed a new lawsuit against Trump in June, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs blocked the federal government from preventing Harvard from enrolling foreign students. Burroughs extended that ban indefinitely on June 20 while litigation between the White House and Harvard continues. Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump says a deal with Harvard could come soon
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
If he wages war unilaterally, Trump will only be the latest of many presidents to do so
Twenty-four years ago this week, I represented a group of bipartisan members of Congress in challenging the Obama administration's decision to attack Libya without a declaration of war. It is a curious anniversary of the litigation, because many of the politicians and pundits who supported (or remained silent on) the action of President Barack Obama are now appalled that President Trump is considering an attack on the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, which is buried deep in a mountain. Later, some Democratic members would move to expand presidential powers to launch attacks without approval. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the drafter of the current legislation to limit Trump's authority, drafted legislation in 2018 to put the authorization for use of military force on virtual autopilot. That was during the first Trump administration, and I testified against that legislation as a virtual authorization for 'endless war.' In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign that not only attacked Libya's capital city but also armored columns of the Libyan military. The clear intent was regime change supported by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also rejected the need to consult with Congress, let alone secure approval before launching a massive attack on another nation. Today, Trump is contemplating the use of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or 'bunker buster' bomb, to destroy the facility. It may be the only weapon that can reach the underground enhancement areas, and it can only be delivered by American B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. It takes courage to oppose such actions by a president of your own party or against an unpopular foe. Notably, among my clients 24 years ago was Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the father of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who also believes that a president should secure approval of Congress before any such attack occurs. The other group that would demand such approval was the Framers themselves. They saw foreign entanglements and military interventions as the markings of despots and tyrants. At the Constitutional Convention, delegate Pierce Butler insisted that a president should not be able to 'make war but when the nation will support it.' Nevertheless, he did not even receive a second to his motion because the Framers demanded real checks on this power. They imposed that limit by only allowing the nation to go to war with the express declaration of Congress. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 states that the 'sole' authority to declare war rests with Congress. In 1793, George Washington supported the denial of this power to a president as a clear and binding promise that 'no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.' The Framers thought that they had solved the problem. In the Pennsylvania ratification convention, James Wilson explained the need for congressional approval as a guarantee that no one will 'hurry us into war [since] it is calculated to guard against it.' The purpose of such approval is not just to limit foreign wars but to secure the support of the people before such wars are commenced. After all, presidents get the glory of wars, but citizens pay the cost in lives and treasure. Politicians, however, quickly became leery of taking such ownership over wars. Congress became increasingly passive in the face of popular military engagements, using ambiguous 'authorizations' to preserve the ability to later insist that they were never really in support of wars. While some of us opposed the Iraq War, politicians like then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) were all-in on the invasion. Yet, when he ran for president, Biden insisted that he had opposed the long, drawn-out war. Then there was Sen. John Kerry. During the Democratic primary in 2004, Kerry portrayed himself as against the Iraq War, even though he had also voted for it. Later, when confronted by George Bush in the general election over his vote against spending $87 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, he offered his notorious response that 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.' Despite the clear text of the Constitution, courts have repeatedly allowed this circumvention of Article I. Congress has only declared 11 wars while allowing more than 125 military operations, including Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan. Congress has not declared war in the 80 years since World War II. In my case, the Obama administration would not even refer to an attack on another nation as a 'war.' It insisted that it was a 'time-limited, scope-limited military action,' or a 'kinetic action.' The court allowed the war to proceed. Both Congress and the courts have effectively amended the Constitution to remove the requirement of war declarations. As a result, the precedent favors Trump in arguing for his right to commit troops unilaterally. Whereas Kaine and others insist that there has been no attack by Iran on the U.S., Trump can cite the fact that Iran has killed or wounded thousands of Americans directly or through surrogates, including attacks on U.S. shipping through its Houthi proxy forces in Yemen. More importantly, he can cite decades of judicial and congressional acquiescence. For my part, I think the Framers were right then and they are right now. We have shown just how right they were with decades of undeclared wars and so little accountability. The fact that these actions are presumptively unconstitutional is an inconvenient fact buried in decades of war hype and hypocrisy. That is why Trump is unlikely to go to Congress and, as a matter of precedent, he does not have to. He will assume the same power his predecessors enjoyed, including recent Democratic presidents. With that history and politics on his side, Trump could turn Fordow into the most expensive hole in history. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
