Connect with us

Middle East

How the global media reacted to the U.S.–Israel strike on Iran

Published

on

The attacks carried out by Israel and the United States against Iran, and Tehran’s response, are today’s main agenda item. While Iranian and Israeli media speak of the successes achieved, the U.S. press has reacted critically to Trump, and Iran’s neighbors are trying to understand the reasons behind what has happened.

Channel 12 (Israel)

The top leadership in Tehran was targeted: Israel and the U.S. struck the residences of Khamenei and Pezeshkian; Ali Shamkhani is assessed to have been neutralized.

Operation “Lion’s Roar” began with a dramatic series of pinpoint strikes aimed at paralyzing the command-and-control chain of the Revolutionary Guards and the Ayatollah regime. According to information obtained by our television channel, Israel assesses with high probability that its air force neutralized figures at the top of the security and state leadership in Tehran, including key individuals in the nuclear program and intelligence.

Tasnim News Agency (Iran)

Following the terrorist attacks carried out by the U.S. and Israel against Iran on Saturday morning, General Abolfazl Shirkati announced that the Iranian armed forces responded immediately and launched missile strikes against all facilities held by the U.S. and Israeli militaries: “With God’s permission, we will give the U.S. and Israel a lesson they have never received in their history.” The General stated that Israeli bases have already been damaged and that Iran will deliver a much harsher blow later. He called on the Iranian public to remain calm, not to heed rumors, and to follow official news through national media.

Gulf News (United Arab Emirates)

Tensions between Washington and Tehran had been escalating for years, but the current escalation is linked to the collapse of the nuclear agreement. Subsequent attempts to revive the deal failed due to disagreements over uranium enrichment levels, sanctions relief, and regional security issues. Re-elected president in 2025, Trump reinstated the “maximum pressure” policy against Iran. Trump cited Iran’s suppression of anti-government protests as justification for potential actions. The protests that erupted at the end of December were harshly suppressed by security forces. What happens next? Iran had previously signaled that it was prepared for retaliatory measures. Analysts say Tehran has several options, including missile strikes on U.S. bases in the region, attacks on Israeli facilities, or moves against American warships. Whether the conflict remains limited or expands regionally will largely depend on Iran’s response in the coming days.

The New York Times (United States)

Why did you start this war, Mr. President?

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised voters that he would not start wars but would instead end them. However, over the past year he ordered military strikes on seven countries. His appetite for military operations appears to grow as they are carried out… Trump’s approach to Iran is reckless. His objectives are unclear. He has failed to secure the international and domestic support necessary to maximize the chances of achieving the desired outcome. He has disregarded both international and domestic laws of war.

Spiegel (Germany)

Iran is not defenseless in the face of a U.S. attack. According to experts, the Tehran regime has the capacity to resist the U.S. Armed Forces, at least temporarily. Farzan Sabet, an analyst of Middle Eastern politics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, states that the Iranian military “could inflict significant damage on U.S. bases in the region and cause high casualties among American soldiers.”

At this stage, Iran primarily relies on its missile inventory. In a statement in 2022, former U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander General Kenneth McKenzie said that Iran possesses more than 3,000 ballistic missiles of various types. According to McKenzie, these weapons have “much more advanced precision accuracy” compared to previous models.

It is difficult to estimate the current state of Iran’s inventory. Tehran used hundreds of ballistic missiles during the 12-day war with Israel last year. According to Sabet, since then Iran has focused on replenishing its stock of missiles with ranges between 1,000 and 3,000 kilometers. However, the extent to which Iran has been able to increase the number of its launchers remains unclear. Israel claims that this number was reduced by half during the clashes.

Al Jazeera (Qatar)

Iran has repeatedly stated that it will never produce nuclear weapons and that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. Neither U.S. intelligence nor the IAEA has found evidence that Iran is seeking to build an atomic bomb, although Israel and some representatives of the Trump administration have claimed otherwise.

Sources speaking to Al Jazeera’s Washington correspondent Alan Fisher said that U.S. participation in the attack aimed to “collapse the regime leadership.” According to the sources, the strikes could target areas where Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei might be hiding. One source stated, “The goal was to eliminate the regime leader and then observe what would happen afterward.” According to the Associated Press, one of the locations struck in the capital was an area near the offices of Iran’s Supreme Leader.

Correspondent Fisher said, “There are countries warning the U.S. against this attack and asking what the plan is for ‘the day after,’ because you cannot say that removing the Supreme Leader guarantees the establishment of a pro-American government.”

A senior Iranian official emphasized that there would be “no red lines” in the response to Israel and U.S. attacks, adding, “All U.S. and Israeli assets and interests in the Middle East are now legitimate targets.”

The Guardian (United Kingdom)

The United Kingdom must resist attempts to be drawn into the conflict in the Middle East. Emily Thornberry, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and a Labour MP, stated that the U.S. and Israeli attacks had no legal basis.

Thornberry said: “According to the information I have received, we are not involved. The UK did not approve this participation, and I believe that is correct. I do not think there is a legal basis for these actions. They [the U.S. and Israel] were not under direct threat, so it is difficult to understand what the legal justification is.”

Asked whether the UK should oppose becoming involved in the conflict, Thornberry responded, “Absolutely. Unless we ourselves are attacked. As I said before, unfortunately as of this morning we do not know whether that might happen, because there is a possibility that the Iranians could attack Western bases in the Gulf, and in that case the picture could change.”

The Jerusalem Post (Israel)

In the months leading up to the attack, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the U.S. Armed Forces conducted joint planning and carried out a comprehensive strike in full coordination and synchronization. Military officials confirmed that the IDF, with all its units, had made “long-term and extensive preparations for this operation within the framework of defense systems and various offensive plans.”

In a statement from the military, it was noted that Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir and other commanders conducted a situation assessment, and that the Israeli Air Force continues to strike military targets in Iran. The Air Force is particularly targeting multiple military facilities in western Iran.

Middle East

UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon

Published

on

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.

According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.

The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.

The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.

In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.

At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.

The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.

Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion

The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.

Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.

At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.

The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.

In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.

In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.

In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.

The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.

The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.

As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.

For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.

In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.

The report listed several additional limitations:

Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.

Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.

No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.

Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.

Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.

No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.

Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).

UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.

Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US

Published

on

Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.

Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.

The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.

US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.

According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.

US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal

According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.

US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.

The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.

Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.

Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement

An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.

During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.

Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.

In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”

Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.

In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.

Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.

Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed

Published

on

The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.

Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.

The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.

The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.

In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.

Negotiations to continue in Switzerland

According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.

A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.

According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.

The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.

In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey