NEWS

Taiwo Adebulu got a grip on the story he had always wanted to tell in Kebbi State, North West Nigeria. Based in Lagos, the journalist travelled miles away to chase it, hoping to gather dozens of anecdotes from school girls abducted by terrorists. News of the 112 abducted schoolgirls had spread like wildfire, with major radio and television stations discussing it for weeks. Then, suddenly, everyone moved on as usual, but the parents and relatives of the abductees continued to rage in pain and anguish. 

Passionate about rejuvenating the lost voices of the girls, Adebulu, the Investigations Editor at TheCable, a Nigerian digital newsroom, flew to Yauri in Kebbi to interview the relatives of the abductees, who he found had been forced to marry the terrorists holding them captive. Someone had introduced him to two local fixers who had contacts with the victims’ families in Yauri. They agreed to meet, showing concern for the girls, who seemed forgotten.

He would work with them for three days to track the girls’ relatives. The journalist said it was an exhaustive journey. The fixers had feigned concerns for the girls, claiming to seek ways to secure their freedom. The journalist, who believes the stories of the forgotten girls needed to be told, thought their interests aligned. The situation changed when he was done conducting interviews and visiting the scene of the abduction.

Adebulu had offered the fixers ₦50,000, based on his limited logistics budget as a journalist. They had agreed on that amount before he left Lagos. Now, the fixers felt they deserved more; they wanted to be compensated well for taking the reporter around the community and connecting him to sources. For the journalist, it was a symbiotic relationship: “Help me tell the story of your people so that I can help amplify their lost voices.” The fixers, however, saw it as a transactional relationship — a clear case of sources for money. Tensions escalated when their intentions conflicted, and arguments ensued.

The journalist was then held to ransom, not by terrorists this time, but by the same fixers who had assisted him in telling the stories of the kidnapped girls. They demanded ₦200,000 for his release. “It was a hellish experience that I do not want to have again,” Adebulu tells me. Though he seemed to have moved on from the incident, his jittery voice gave away his anxiety. He bargained with the fixers, reducing the amount to ₦100,000 and pleading with them not to harm him.

Only the fixers knew his whereabouts – no one else. They had discouraged him from lodging in a proper hotel, citing security concerns. Instead, they took him to a nearly empty five-bedroom service apartment for safety. They threatened not to release him if he refused to pay at least ₦100,000. They issued this threat at night when everything was dark. Adebulu felt vulnerable and scared for his life, knowing he had no one to call or anywhere to run.

“We finally negotiated and settled for ₦100,000 that night. I made a ₦50,000 transfer and told them I would pay the remaining ₦50,000 the following day because I had a network issue. They claimed they didn’t receive the ₦50,000 I had sent, but I had already received confirmation that the transaction was successful,” he recalls.

“They then seized my iPhone, saying they would keep it as collateral if anything happened. My iPhone was worth around ₦500,000, significantly more than the ₦100,000 they wanted. So, it was safer for them to keep my phone,” Adebulu explains.

Anxiety and a sense of danger left him unable to sleep that night after his so-called fixers took away his phone. By early morning, he decided to leave the state immediately. After taking a bath, he contacted the fixers to ask if they had received the ₦50,000 he transferred the previous day. They denied it. To expedite his release and departure, the journalist sent an additional ₦100,000 that same morning. Following the second transaction, the fixers returned his mobile phone. They transported him by motorcycle to a nearby motor park, where he boarded a vehicle heading to Kontagora, Niger State in North-central Nigeria.

“When I arrived in Abuja and visited my bank, I was informed that both transactions, the ₦50,000 sent the previous day and the ₦100,000 sent the next morning, had been successfully processed. I immediately contacted the recipients and demanded a refund of the extra ₦50,000. However, they told me it couldn’t be returned; the money was gone for good. At that point, I realised there was nothing I could do. I simply had to accept the loss and move on,” he adds.

Throughout Africa, the number of journalists willing to cover violent conflicts is decreasing, not due to their choice. In Nigeria, these courageous reporters confront harsh realities: threats of murder from terrorists, assaults by government agents, and the emotional toll of witnessing human suffering. From 1992 to 2020, 1,378 journalists lost their lives globally, with many killed while covering domestic strife rather than foreign wars. Nigeria’s history is marked by violence, from the assassination of Suleiman Bisalla in Kaduna to the 2020 assault on Daily Post’s Sikiru Obarayese while covering the #EndSARS protest in Osun State, South West Nigeria. For every incident that receives attention, several more remain unreported. Despite the dangers they face, Nigerian conflict journalists are often deployed without trauma support, insurance, or adequate protection from their institutions. Their challenges don’t conclude at the battlefield; many return home burdened with emotional distress that goes unnoticed beyond the headlines.

For Adebulu, the story was told, but the emotional distress still lives with him. Although the investigative piece was later shortlisted for the Fetisov journalism award, arguably the most prestigious journalism laurel globally, his interest in such adventurous stories diminished due to the potential danger lurking around and the emotional that trailing them. It was an incredibly traumatic experience that he sincerely hopes never to relive. It was his first time facing such a situation: being held to ransom by fixers who seized his phone and left him genuinely fearing for his life.

“I wasn’t there for personal gain; I was trying to help the community by covering the abduction of the girls, shedding light on their harrowing ordeal, and documenting their stories in the hope of drawing much-needed support. Instead, I found myself in a vulnerable position, pressured by individuals who demanded an exorbitant amount of money simply because they had driven me around and arranged access to sources for interviews,” he says. 

The cunning fixer

Adebulu’s experience with deceitful fixers resonated with me, as I had a similar encounter while covering a story. In Niger State, a local fixer, Bago Abdullahi, is notorious for milking journalists, and he does this effortlessly. Swindlers are not only present in Kebbi and Niger states; this problem has become widespread for those striving to tell the stories of ordinary people caught in violence, especially in northern Nigeria.

As a chief investigative reporter at Premium Times in 2022, I travelled to Niger to unravel what I believed would be one of the most important stories of the time. I was determined to document the tragic story of six young girls killed during a Nigerian Air Force (NAF) surveillance strike in the small village of Kurebe.

The NAF had claimed that the operation was successful, targeting terrorists and criminal masterminds thriving in the community. However, I uncovered a different reality when I spoke to on-the-ground sources. The victims were all civilians, and those six girls, aged between three and six, were lost in a moment of sanctioned violence. Their homes were reduced to rubble, and both bombs and denial scarred their village.

Determined to uncover the truth, I travelled to the state to speak with the victims’ families, local eyewitnesses, and anyone who could shed light on what had happened. I knew the story I wanted to tell intimately, but I needed a local fixer to help navigate the complexities of access and trust. I found a man who initially presented himself as a defender of his people, motivated by a desire to see rural terrorism become a thing of the past in the state. He spoke convincingly, expressing his wish to share Kurebe’s story with the world. I believed him; his enthusiasm matched mine, and I thought I had found a genuine ally in the fight against terrorism.

I was wrong, as that facade quickly faded.

He demanded ₦250,000 upfront to transport five sources from Kurebe and neighbouring villages to the relatively safe town of Kuta, where I could interview them without fear of retaliation. I later discovered that the transport cost per person was under ₦3,000. One source mentioned that she received no more than ₦3,000 for the round trip. The fixer had told me each person would receive ₦25, 000. What happened to the rest of the money?  He pocketed it.

He had promised hotel accommodations for the sources but only provided them with a single, cramped room. When I confronted him about this, hoping to restore some dignity for those whose stories I aimed to amplify, he responded with further demands: an additional ₦100,000 this time, without any clear explanation.

I refused.

That’s when his demeanour shifted. The man who once claimed to be my ally became venomous. Insults poured in through text messages. He accused me of being ungrateful and hoarding the money my organisation sent. “You’ll win awards with this story,” he raged. “And yet you don’t want to give us our due!”

What he didn’t know was that I had received only ₦220,000 in total from my media organisation at that time, and I had been using my savings to make the trip happen. I wasn’t seeking glory; I was striving to document the truth.

Despite the insults, I completed the story, and it was published. However, I walked away feeling sickened by how easily noble intentions can be twisted by those who view tragedy as their currency. In the following months, other journalists confided in me that they, too, had been scammed by the same man – colleagues like Yakubu Mohammed, who faced similar deception, and Isah Ismail, a journalist with HumAngle, who had also fallen victim to his manipulative escapade. He was made to cough up ₦80,000 to connect him to sources who he claimed would be travelling from far places to Kuta, only for the journalist to realise that the locals were based there, not coming from elsewhere.

The pain of the Kurebe girls’ story stayed with me, but so did the sense of betrayal. It served as a reminder that even in pursuing justice, not all allies are who they claim to be.

Branded a betrayer

Yaqubu Muhammad, a Premium Times reporter, had even a more horrible experience while trying to document the plight of locals uprooted by war in Niger state. His story is similar to Adebulu’s but more worrisome, as it was a near-death experience. In 2020,  Mohammed was mistaken for a terrorist informant by soldiers surveilling the tense town of the Shiroro area in the state, causing him a life-threatening encounter.

His mission was to visit the hotspot of rural terrorism in Shiroro. He wanted to be in Kokki, Magami, Sarkin Zuma, and Uguwan Magero to tell the stories of victims of armed violence whose livelihood had been stolen by a new front of terrorists. Alongside Bello Kokki, his fixer, the journalist rode on a motorcycle for hours before getting to the hard-to-reach communities. He was initially scared, but despite the risk, Muhammad pressed on, driven by a sense of duty.

It took three hours for the journalist to travel from Lapai to Kuta. His fixer had picked him from there, riding him through farm fields and ghost villages sacked by terrorists. They had travelled through the ungoverned spaces unhindered, documenting the losses and the lives lost to terrorists in the axis. Later, they explored the Kwatai riverbank, speaking to dozens of displaced villagers who had built makeshift shelters. The sight left Mohammed in awe, pondering how people survived in such conditions.

“[…] the storylines were dotted with bloody tales through the teary eyes of sedentary villagers,” he wrote in a reporter’s diary. He returned to the riverbank, staying behind to continue his interviews, but his fixer had to leave due to fear of impending attacks. That night, he slept in a makeshift hut with other displaced people, unaware of the danger lurking around the place.

When the cock crowed the following morning, some soldiers stormed the camp. His face was strange to them; it was the first time they saw someone carrying a camera, wanting to speak to displaced persons. It was a satellite community, and it was hard to reach. “Oga! Let’s shoot him; he’s a bandit’s informant,” one soldier yelled. The soldiers dragged him out, accusing him of espionage. Surrounded by armed men ready to fire, the journalist says he was already imagining his obituary. The more he tried explaining that he was just a journalist trying to tell the story of locals caught up in the armed violence, the more he was looked at with disdain, insults and harassment. “You are a spy. You came to take pictures and send to bandits,” one of them insisted, with his pleas falling on deaf ears.

After a few hours of grilling the journalists, letting out the sweat in him, a senior officer intervened to de-escalate the situation. The officer asked the reporter to present his ID card and phone for verification. “You are lucky,” the officer said after verifying his identity. If not, you would have been gone by now.”

Scared for his life, Mohammed left the camp immediately, with his heart pounding. He believes surviving that moment was a miracle, as scores of journalists had been killed in a similar situation. The experience left a deep scar, knowing that the story could have been told with a bullet-pierced skin. The trauma was compounded by the fact that he had been trying to help, not harm.

Two years later, he shared the behind-the-scenes account through WikkiTimes, hoping to shed light on journalists’ dangers in conflict zones. “It was indeed an examination,” he said, referencing the mental and emotional toll. “I am no longer naive,” he wrote. “But I will not stop telling the stories that matter.”

Damilola Ayeni is another Nigerian journalist who has faced a similar ordeal with security operatives. He travelled to a terrorist-affected zone in the Republic of Benin and ended up behind bars, despite identifying himself. He was tracking the movements of elephants from Nigeria to the conflict zone of the Benin Republic, only to be detained by local authorities. He spent days in detention before finally gaining his freedom following media pressure. 

Numerous cases of Nigerian journalists facing mistreatment by terrorists, military personnel, and civilian groups often remain unreported or receive minimal coverage. According to the Wilson Centre, it is estimated that for every reported incident of journalist assault in Nigeria, there are at least four cases that go unrecorded.

“Appropriate legislation should be adopted to compel media owners to prioritise the general welfare of journalists, particularly those working in dangerous zones. Media advocacy groups and civil society organisations should also consider bringing attention and support to journalists working in dangerous zones,” says Olusola Isola, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Strategic Studies at the University of Ibadan. “Media owners in Nigeria should consider providing personal protection equipment for journalists on dangerous assignments, as well as medical evacuation services and life insurance policies.”

In 1948, as the foundations of the Israeli state were being laid upon the ruins of hundreds of Palestinian villages, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (AFFFI), condemning the growing Zionist militancy within the settler Jewish community. “When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the terrorist organisations built up from our own ranks. I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people.”

Einstein — perhaps the most celebrated Jewish intellectual of the 20th century — refused to conflate his Jewish identity with the violence of Zionism. He turned down the offer to become Israel’s president, rejecting the notion that Jewish survival and self-determination should come at the cost of another people’s displacement and suffering. And yet, if Einstein were alive today, his words would likely be condemned under the current definitions of anti-Semitism adopted by many Western governments and institutions, including the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, now endorsed by most Australian universities.

Under the IHRA definition, Einstein’s outspoken criticism of Israel — he called its founding actors “terrorists” and denounced their betrayal of Jewish ethics — would render him suspect. He would be accused not only of delegitimising Israel, but also of anti-Semitism. His moral clarity, once visionary, would today be vilified.

That is why we must untangle the threads of Zionism, colonialism and human rights.

Einstein’s resistance to Zionism was not about denying Jewish belonging or rights; it was about refusing to build those rights on ethno-nationalist violence. He understood what too many people fail to grasp today: that Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous.

Zionism is a political ideology rooted in European colonial logics, one that enforces Jewish supremacy in a land shared historically by Palestinian and other Levantine peoples. To criticise this ideology is not anti-Semitic; it is, rather, a necessary act of justice and a moral act of bearing witness. The religious symbolism that Israel uses is irrelevant in this respect. And yet, in today’s political climate, any critique of Israel — no matter how grounded it might be in international law, historical fact or humanitarian concern — is increasingly branded as anti-Semitism. This conflation shields from accountability a settler-colonial state, and it silences Palestinians and their allies from speaking out on the reality of their oppression. Billions in arms sales, stolen resources and apartheid infrastructure don’t just happen; they’re the reason that legitimate “criticism” gets rebranded as “hate”.

READ: Ex-Israel PM accuses Netanyahu of waging war on Israel

To understand Einstein’s critique, we must confront the truth about Zionism itself. While often framed as a movement for Jewish liberation, Zionism in practice has operated as a colonial project of erasure and domination. The Nakba was not a tragic consequence of war, it was a deliberate blueprint for dispossession and disappearance. Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has detailed how David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, approved “Plan Dalet” on 10 March, 1948. This included the mass expulsion and execution of Palestinians to create a Jewish-majority state. As Ben-Gurion himself declared chillingly: “Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion.”

This is the basis of the Zionist state that we are told not to critique.

Einstein saw this unfolding and recoiled. In another 1948 open letter to the New York Times, he and other Jewish intellectuals described Israel’s newly formed political parties — like Herut (the precursor to Likud) — as “closely akin in… organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

Einstein’s words were not hyperbole, they were a warning. Having fled Nazi Germany, he had direct experience with the defining traits of Nazi fascism. “From Israel’s past actions,” he wrote, “we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.”

Today, we are living in the very future that Einstein feared, a reality marked by massacres in Gaza, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the denial of basic essentials such as water, electricity and medical aid. This is not about “self-defence”; it is the logic of colonial domination whereby the land theft continues and the violence escalates.

Einstein warned about what many still refuse to see: a state established on principles of ethnic supremacy and expulsion could never transcend its foundation ethos. Israel’s creation in occupied Palestine is Zionism in practice; it cannot endure without employing repression until resistance is erased entirely. Hence, the Nakba wasn’t a one-off event in 1948; it evolved, funded by Washington, armed by Berlin and enabled by every government that trades Palestinian blood for political favours.

Zionism cannot be separated from the broader history of European settler-colonialism. As Patrick Wolfe explains, the ideology hijacked the rhetoric of Jewish liberation to mask its colonial reality of re-nativism, with the settlers recasting themselves as “indigenous” while painting resistance as terrorism.

READ: Illegal Israeli settlers attack Palestinian school in occupied West Bank

The father of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, stated in his manifesto-novel Altneuland, “To build anew, I must demolish before I construct.” To him, Palestine was not seen as a shared homeland, but as a house to be razed to the ground and rebuilt by and for Jews alone. His ideology was made possible by British imperial interests to divide and dominate post-Ottoman territories. Through ethnic partition and military alliances embellished under the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the ironic Zionist-Nazi 1933 Haavara Agreement, the Zionist project aligned perfectly with the West’s goal, as per the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Israel is thus criticised because of its political ideology rooted in ethnonationalism and settler colonialism. Equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is a disservice not only to Palestinians, but also to Jews, especially those who, like Einstein, refuse to have their identity weaponised in the service of war crimes. Zionism today includes Christian Zionists, military allies and Western politicians who benefit from Israel’s imperial reach through arms deals, surveillance technology and geostrategic partnerships.

Zionism is a global power structure, not a monolithic ethnic identity.

Many Jews around the world — rabbis, scholars, students and Holocaust survivors and their descendants — continue Einstein’s legacy by saying “Not in our name”. They reject the co-option of Holocaust memory to justify genocide in Gaza. They refuse to be complicit in what the Torah forbids: the theft of land and the murder of innocents. They are not “self-hating Jews”. They are the inheritors of a prophetic tradition of justice. And they are being silenced.

Perhaps the most dangerous development today is, therefore, Israel’s insistence on linking its crimes to Jewish identity. It frames civilian massacres, apartheid policies and violations of international law as acts done in the name of all Jews and Judaism. By tying the Jewish people to the crimes of a state, Israel risks exposing Jews around the world to collective blame and retaliation.

Einstein warned against this. And if Einstein’s vision teaches us anything, it is this: Justice cannot be compromised for comfort and profit. Truth must outlast repression. And freedom must belong to all. In the end, no amount of Israel’s militarisation of terminology, propaganda or geopolitical alliances can suppress a people’s resistance forever or outlast global condemnation. The only question left is: how much more blood will be spilled before justice prevails?

The struggle for clarity today is not just academic, it is existential. Without the ability to distinguish anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism, we cannot build a future where Jews and Palestinians all live in dignity, safety and peace. Reclaiming the term “Semite” in its full meaning, encompassing both Jews and Arabs, is critical. Further isolation of Arabs from their Semitic identity has enabled the dehumanisation of Palestinians and the erasure of shared Jewish-Arab histories, especially the centuries of coexistence, the Jewish-Muslim golden ages in places like Baghdad, Granada/Andalusia, Istanbul, Damascus and Cairo.

Einstein stood up for the future for us to reclaim it.

The way forward must be rooted in truth, justice and accountability. That means unequivocally opposing anti-Semitism in all its forms, but refusing to allow the term to be manipulated as a shield for apartheid, ethnic cleansing and colonial domination. It means affirming that Jewish safety must never come at the price of Palestinian freedom, and that Palestinian resistance is not hatred; it is survival.

And if Einstein would be silenced today, who will speak tomorrow?

OPINION: Palestinian voices are throttled by the promotion of foreign agendas

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

South Africa’s foreign policy has traditionally rested on three pillars: human rights advocacy, multilateralism, and solidarity with the Global South. Post-apartheid, Pretoria positioned itself as a mediator in global conflicts, a champion of African interests, and a voice against imperialism. However, under Ramaphosa’s administration, this identity appears blurred. The guiding principles remain on paper, but in practice, foreign policy decisions often seem reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to internal political pressures. This disconnect between ideals and implementation is where the cracks begin to show.

South Africa’s foreign policy under President Cyril Ramaphosa presents a contradictory and increasingly incoherent landscape. While the country once proudly stood on the global stage as a principled voice of moral authority, particularly in the post-apartheid era, recent trends reveal a foreign policy marred by inconsistency, political improvisation, and a diminishing institutional role for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). These developments expose both the fine cracks and widening chasms in South Africa’s diplomatic posture.

South Africa’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been one of its most vocal and consistent foreign policy markers in recent years. Ramaphosa’s government has taken a firm stance in condemning Israeli actions in Gaza, even leading the charge at the International Court of Justice to accuse Israel of genocide. This has resonated with domestic constituencies, particularly those with historical sympathies for the Palestinian cause. However, critics argue that this moral clarity is selectively applied. South Africa’s silence or caution on atrocities in other regions, such as Xinjiang and the Tigray conflict, undermines the moral authority it seeks to project to the world.

Another troubling issue has been South Africa’s muted and inconsistent response to international propaganda regarding so-called “white genocide” or the “murder of white farmers.” This narrative, often amplified by far-right groups abroad, misrepresents rural crime in South Africa and distorts complex socio-economic realities for political gain. Yet, Ramaphosa’s administration has not proactively countered these claims with a sustained international communication strategy. The absence of a clear and robust rebuttal not only damages the country’s image but also allows disinformation to fester in influential circles abroad.

A more subtle but revealing fault line lies in how foreign policy is shaped to accommodate powerful economic actors. South Africa’s reported willingness to bend B-BBEE (Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment) rules to allow Elon Musk’s Starlink to operate raises deeper questions. On the one hand, there is an understandable desire to expand connectivity and embrace digital innovation. On the other, such decisions appear to signal that policy can be suspended or softened when big business is involved. This flexibility undermines the credibility of domestic policy frameworks and opens South Africa up to accusations of inconsistency or even opportunism.

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), once a hub of strategic thinking and diplomacy, now seems increasingly peripheral. Under Ramaphosa, DIRCO has struggled to assert itself as the authoritative voice on foreign policy. The lack of clarity in positions, delays in diplomatic appointments, and an overall sense of drift reflect a department in decline. This vacuum has created space for a troubling trend: the proliferation of unofficial and undisciplined commentary on foreign policy matters by ANC leaders such as Fikile Mbalula, whose portfolio is far-fetched from foreign policy.

In recent years, it has become common for various ANC figures, some holding no official position in international affairs, to make bold and, at times, incendiary statements on global matters. Whether it’s views on BRICS, Russia’s war in Ukraine, or Israel-Palestine, these statements often contradict each other or official government policy. This free-for-all has consequences. It undermines diplomatic coherence, confuses international partners, and erodes confidence in Pretoria’s reliability as a global actor.

At best, South Africa’s current foreign policy could be described as fragmented realism wrapped in rhetorical idealism. At worst, it is ad hoc, domestically driven, and lacking a unifying vision. It is unclear whether Ramaphosa’s government is intentionally pursuing a flexible and pragmatic foreign policy or whether it is simply reacting to events without a strong guiding compass. The blurred lines between party, government, and department make it difficult to distinguish strategic priorities from political expediency.

If South Africa hopes to retain its voice on the international stage, it must begin by consolidating its foreign policy machinery. DIRCO must be empowered, not sidelined. Policy statements must be consistent, not contradictory. Foreign engagement must be principled, not selectively moralistic or economically opportunistic. The world is watching South Africa’s foreign policy circles with keen interest; it is confused by what it sees. The time to fix these cracks, both fine and foundational, is now.

South Africa cannot afford to be a bystander amid the seismic shifts shaping global politics. In an era marked by rising geopolitical tensions, great power rivalries, and contested norms, a passive or ambiguous foreign policy amounts to self-marginalization. South Africa’s historical legacy as a nation that transitioned from apartheid through global solidarity and principled diplomacy demands that it play a more assertive role in international affairs.

A firm, values-based stance in global politics not only reaffirms South Africa’s own agency but also sets a precedent for the African continent. Africa, often treated as a passive recipient of global outcomes, needs bold leadership among its middle powers. By taking principled and consistent positions on international issues from human rights to economic justice, South Africa can embolden its neighbors to speak with greater unity and confidence on the global stage.

In this context, South Africa’s role is not just national—it is continental. A coherent and courageous foreign policy can catalyze a broader African voice in global governance, helping to redefine Africa’s place not as a bargaining chip in great power politics, but as a serious actor in shaping a fairer, more multipolar world order.

Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the Intl Crisis Group, says that despite Iran and Israel accepting Trump’s ceasefire, Iran believes Israel isn’t done with its war on Iran.

Iran launched waves of air strikes at Israel as the deadline approached for a ceasefire to which Tehran is reported to have agreed.

The launches came on Tuesday after 4am local time (7:30 GMT) in Tehran, the time Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran would stop its attacks if Israel ended its air strikes.

Waves of missiles sent Israelis to bomb shelters for almost two hours in the morning.

Several people were reported killed in the early morning barrages, but there was no immediate word of further attacks.

Israel’s Magen David Adom rescue services said at least eight more people were injured.

The Israeli military later said people could leave the shelters but cautioned the public to stay close to protection in the coming hours.

Trump’s announcement that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total ceasefire” came soon after Iran launched a limited missile attack on Monday on a US military base in Qatar, retaliating for the US bombing of its nuclear sites.

Israel said later on Tuesday that it has agreed to the ceasefire after having “achieved all objectives” in its war with Iran.

US President Trump calls for calm as truce agreement raises hope of an end to the dangerous conflict.

Iran and Israel are reported to have agreed to a ceasefire following 12 days of exchanging intense air strikes, including a “last-minute” barrage fired by Tehran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement on Tuesday morning that Israel had agreed to the truce proposal announced by United States President Donald Trump overnight. Earlier, Iranian state television reported that the ceasefire had begun.

The Israeli statement came not long after Trump had said in a post on social media that the ceasefire was under way.

“The ceasefire is now in effect. Please do not violate it!” he said.

While Netanyahu threatened that Israel would respond forcefully to any violation of the ceasefire, the agreement raises hopes for a de-escalation in a conflict that intensified dramatically in recent days, as the US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities and Tehran attacked a US base in Qatar.

“In light of the achievement of the objectives of the operation, and in full coordination with President Trump, Israel has agreed to the President’s proposal for a bilateral ceasefire,” he said.

Waves of missiles

A fragile peace appeared to take hold early on Tuesday, with reports of hostilities ceasing following six waves of missile launches by Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi implied the strikes were launched just before a 07.30 GMT deadline announced by Trump.

“The military operations of our powerful Armed Forces to punish Israel for its aggression continued until the very last minute,” he wrote on social media.

Several people were killed in the attacks, emergency services and the Israeli military said. Not long afterwards, Israelis were told they could leave missile shelters, and no further launches have been reported.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi said Israeli strikes on the capital had halted, calling the calm “a promising indication about the prospect of the ceasefire”.

But he noted that the situation remains fragile, with Iran, like Israel, having pledged to strike back in case there is any resumption of attacks against it.

‘Now Gaza’

Following Netanyahu’s announcement that his government had agreed to the ceasefire, Israel’s opposition called for him to seal a truce to end the 20-month war with Hamas in Gaza.

“And now Gaza. It’s time to finish it there too. Bring back the hostages, end the war,” opposition leader Yair Lapid wrote on social media.

However, hardliners criticised the agreement, insisting Iran remains dangerous.

The “regime in Iran is not a regime with which agreements are made but a regime that must be defeated,” wrote Dan Illouz, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party.

“If not defeated” Iran will find new means against Israel, he declared.

Israel attacked Iran on June 13 saying that Tehran was close to developing a nuclear weapon. Trump made a similar assertion before the US strikes on Saturday.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog IAEA on Monday demanded access to Iran’s nuclear facilities to confirm the location and state of the country’s enriched uranium.

There has been speculation that Iran may have moved its stock of the nuclear material ahead of the US strikes on the Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz facilities.

Mohammad Eslami, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said on Tuesday that Tehran is assessing damage to its nuclear industry and arrangements have been made for its restoration, the Reuters news agency reported.

“The plan is to prevent interruptions in the process of production and services,” Eslami said.

More than 100 Labour MPs are supporting a fresh effort to block the government’s planned changes to the benefits system.

The MPs have signed an amendment that would give them an opportunity to vote on a proposal to reject the welfare reform bill in its entirety.

Dozens of Labour MPs have expressed concerns about the plans to cut disability and sickness-related benefits payments to save £5bn a year by 2030.

Ministers have attempted to soften the impact of the welfare changes, but many Labour MPs remain discontented with the package of benefits reforms.

The welfare reform bill – called the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill – will include proposals to make it harder for disabled people with less severe conditions to claim personal independence payment (Pip).

The amendment, published on the UK Parliament website, notes “the need for the reform of the social security system” before outlining reasons why the bill should be rejected.

The reasons it lists for thwarting the bill include the number of people the plans are expected to push into relative poverty, a lack of consultation, and an inadequate impact assessment on the consequences on the jobs market and on people’s health.

It is known as a reasoned amendment, which is a parliamentary mechanism which allows MPs to record their reasons for objecting to a bill.

If the reasoned amendment is selected by House Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, and the majority of MPs vote in favour of it, the bill will not be allowed to continue its passage through Parliament.

While the success of the amendment is not assured, the level of support for it among Labour MPs indicates the extent of the potential rebellion facing ministers.

The Labour MPs who have signed the amendment include 10 Labour select committee chairs.

These are Tan Dhesi, Helen Hayes, Florence Eshalomi, Patricia Ferguson, Ruth Cadbury, Dame Meg Hillier, Ruth Jones, Sarah Owen, Debbie Abrahams and Cat Smith.

This number of Labour opponents to the government’s welfare plans could be enough to inflict defeat on Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in the House of Commons, were all the opposition parties to oppose the plans too.

The government has a working majority of 165 in the Commons, meaning that 83 Labour MPs would need to oppose the bill to force a parliamentary defeat.

Earlier, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said she did not want to alert Labour to her plans before the welfare reform bill was voted on.

A senior Conservative source said the shadow cabinet would be discussing whether to help the government vote through the welfare reforms when they meet on Tuesday morning.

It is thought about half the amendment’s signatories so far are from the new intake of Labour MPs – those elected at the general election last year.

The vote on the government’s bill is currently due to take place a week tomorrow – on Tuesday 1 July.

In a meeting of Labour MPs on Monday evening, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall defended the welfare reforms, arguing greater spending on benefits alone was “no route to social justice”.

“The path to fairer society – one where everyone thrives, where people who can work get the support they need, and where we protect those who cannot – that is the path we seek to build with our reforms,” Kendall said.

“Our plans are rooted in fairness – for those who need support and for taxpayers.

“They are about ensuring the welfare state survives, so there is always a safety net for those who need it.”

One of the main co-ordinators behind the amendment, who did not wish to be named, told the BBC the government’s U-turn on cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners “demonstrates that they are susceptible to pressure”.

They said the decision emboldened many of those who have signed the amendment, saying MPs “all voted for winter fuel [cuts] and have taken so much grief in our constituencies, so colleagues think why should I take that on again?”.

It is understood that plans for the amendment began when the government offered a partial olive branch, by expanding the transition period for anyone losing the personal independence payment.

The same MP who has been helping to co-ordinate the amendment said the offering by the government earlier this month was “pathetic” and “angered people even more”.

They said direct phone calls from Sir Keir and Chancellor Rachel Reeves that were supposed to placate would-be rebels had instead “been entrenching people” to vote against the bill.

They accused Number 10 of thinking MPs can be “bullied into voting with them” and said the aim of the amendment was to “send the government back to the drawing board” by forcing them to withdraw next week’s vote.

The welfare package as a whole could push an extra 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into relative poverty, according to the government’s impact assessment.

The Department for Work and Pensions says it expects 3.2 million families – a mixture of current and future recipients – to lose out financially, as a result of the total package of measures, with an average loss of £1,720 per year.

This includes 370,000 current Pip recipients who will no longer qualify and 430,000 future claimants who will get less than they would previously have been entitled to.

But ministers have stressed the figures do not factor in the government’s plans to spend £1bn on helping the long-term sick and disabled back into work, or its efforts to reduce poverty.

Ministers hope these efforts will boost employment among benefits recipients, at a time when 2.8 million people are economically inactive due to long-term sickness.

If nothing changes, the health and disability benefits bill is forecast to reach £70bn a year by the end of the decade, a level of spending the government says is “unsustainable”.

The government is planning to put the welfare reforms in place by November 2026 and no one will lose out on benefits payments until that happens.

The armed wing of Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades, released a video message on Wednesday afternoon showing an Israeli captive currently held in Gaza, the Palestinian Information Centre has reported. The footage shows Omri Miran lighting a candle on what he described as his “second birthday” in captivity.

“This is my second birthday here. I can’t say I’m celebrating; it’s just another day in captivity,” said Miran. “I made this cake for the occasion, but there is no joy. It’s been a year and a half. I miss my daughters and my wife terribly.”

He addressed the Israeli public directly, including his family and friends. “Conditions here are extremely tough. Thank you to everyone demonstrating to bring us home safely.”

The captive also urged Israelis to stage a mass protest outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence. “Bring my daughters so I can see them on TV. Do everything you can now to get us home. Netanyahu’s supporters don’t care about us, they’d rather see us dead.”

Screengrab from footage shows Israeli captive Omri Miran

He asked captives released in previous prisoner exchange deals to protest and speak to the media. “Let the people know how bad it is for us. We live in constant fear of bombings. A deal must be reached soon before we return home in coffins.

Miran urged demonstrators to appeal to US President Donald Trump to put pressure on Netanyahu: “Do not believe Netanyahu. Military pressure is only killing us. A deal — only a deal — will bring us home. Turn to Trump. He seems to be the only powerful person in the world who could push Netanyahu to agree to a deal.”

He also mentioned the worsening humanitarian situation: “The captors told me the crossings are closed; no food or supplies are coming in. As a result, we’re receiving even less food than before.”

In conclusion, the captive sent a pointed message to the Israeli leadership: “Netanyahu, Dermer, Smotrich, Ben Gvir — you are the reason for 7 October. Because of you, I am here. Because of you, we’re all here. You’re bringing the state to collapse.”

READ: US synagogues close their doors to Israel MK Ben-Gvir

Russia called the US strikes on Iran ‘unjustified’ and ‘unprovoked’, while China warned they ‘set a bad precedent’.

Russia and China have strongly condemned US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, warning they could drag the world into a broader war and set a dangerous international precedent.

The reactions came just hours before Iran launched missiles at the US base in Qatar on Monday in response to Sunday’s strikes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday described the American strikes as “unjustified” and said they were pushing the world towards a perilous tipping point.

Speaking after talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi at the Kremlin, Putin said Moscow would try to help the Iranian people but stopped short of detailing how.

“The absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran has no basis and no justification,” Putin told Araghchi. “For our part, we are making efforts to assist the Iranian people.”

The Chinese government also weighed in, with Foreign Minister Wang Yi condemning both the Israeli strikes on Iran and the US bombardment of its nuclear facilities. He said the rationale of attacking over “possible future threats” sent the wrong signal to the world and urged a return to diplomacy.

Wang called for all parties to “immediately resume dialogue and negotiation”, warning the escalation risked destabilising the region.

Bringing the world ‘to a very dangerous line’

Tensions have soared in recent days, with US President Donald Trump and Israeli officials openly discussing the possibility of assassinating Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and pushing for regime change – moves the Kremlin warned could plunge the region into a full-blown war.

During the high-level Kremlin meeting on Monday, Araghchi reportedly handed Putin a message from Khamenei, though the contents were not disclosed. A senior Iranian source told the Reuters news agency the letter called for increased Russian support, but Moscow has not confirmed receiving any such appeal.

Later, while addressing a gathering of elite military recruits, Putin spoke more broadly about growing instability. “Extra-regional powers are also being drawn into the conflict,” he said. “All this brings the world to a very dangerous line.”

Despite signing a 20-year strategic pact with Iran earlier this year, Russia has avoided making concrete military commitments to defend Tehran, and the agreement lacks any mutual defence clause.

Iranian frustration

Iranian officials, speaking anonymously to Reuters, expressed frustration with Moscow’s perceived inaction. They said Tehran felt let down by both Russia and China, despite repeated calls for support.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov declined to say whether Iran had asked for weapons or military aid but insisted Moscow’s ties with Tehran remained strong. “Our strategic partnership with Iran is unbreakable,” Ryabkov said, adding that Iran had every right to defend itself.

Still, the Kremlin appears wary of any move that might provoke a direct confrontation with Washington, particularly as Trump seeks to ease tensions with Moscow amid the war in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said US-Iran developments would not affect the Russia-US dialogue, calling them “separate processes”.

Memories of US-led wars in the Middle East still linger. At Sunday’s United Nations Security Council session, Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia drew comparisons with the 2003 Iraq invasion. He recalled how the US falsely claimed Iraq held weapons of mass destruction.

“Again, we’re being asked to believe the US’s fairytales,” Nebenzia said. “This cements our conviction that history has taught our US colleagues nothing.”

Russia, China and Pakistan have jointly submitted a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East.

Russian airstrikes hit Kyiv overnight in the second major attack this week, killing 10 and wounding several others. Resident Valeriy Mankuta survived a missile strike by climbing down a lightning rod to escape his damaged home.

A commitment to international law “goes absolutely to the heart” of Sir Keir Starmer’s government and its approach to foreign policy, the attorney general has told the BBC.

In his first broadcast interview, Lord Richard Hermer, who is the Cabinet’s chief legal adviser, said that the government was determined to “lead on international law issues” globally.

He argued that this has enabled the UK to strike economic deals with the US, India and the EU in recent months.

The attorney general also defended Starmer’s decision to seek a “warm” relationship with President Trump even at the expense of “short-term political gain”.

Lord Hermer’s comments, which came in a full extended interview for an upcoming BBC Radio 4 programme Starmer’s Stormy Year, were made before recent speculation about his legal advice regarding the government’s approach to the conflict between Israel and Iran.

Nevertheless, they help to illuminate the approach being taken by one of the most powerful figures in government, as ministers navigate a perilous diplomatic moment.

On Monday, the government repeatedly declined to say whether it believed that America’s strikes on Iran were legal, arguing that this was not a question for British ministers to assess.

The approach to the law taken by Hermer, an old friend of the prime minister who had no political profile prior to his surprise appointment almost a year ago, has been a persistent controversy throughout Starmer’s premiership.

Asked whether international law was a “red line” for the prime minister in foreign policy, Hermer replied: “If you ask me what’s Keir’s kind of principal overriding interest, it is genuinely to make life better for the people of this country.”

He continued: “Is international law important to this government and to this prime minister? Of course it is.

“It’s important in and of itself, but it’s also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we’re trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.

“And so I am absolutely convinced, and I think the government is completely united on this, that actually by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law – domestic law and international law – we serve the national interest.”

Hermer added: “Look, we’ve just entered trade deals with the United States, with India, with the EU, and we’re able to do that because we’re back on the world stage as a country whose word is their bond.

“No one wants to do deals with people they don’t trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that’s got a government that’s saying, well, ‘we may comply with it, we may not’.

“We do. We succeed. We secure those trade deals, which are essential for making people’s lives better in this country.

“We secure deals on migration with France, with Germany, with Iraq, that are going to deal with some of the other fundamental problems that we face, and we can do that because we comply, and we’re seen to comply and indeed lead on international law issues.

“Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.”

Speaking about the UK’s relationship with the US more generally, Hermer said: “It’s a relationship that will no doubt at various points have various different pressures, but it is an absolutely vital one for us to have.

“I think the approach that Keir has taken, which is never to give in to that kind of Love Actually instinct for short-term political gain, but rather to ensure that our relationship with the United States remains warm, that channels of communication are always open, that there is mutual respect between us.

“I think that is overwhelmingly in this country’s interests.”

In the 2003 film Love Actually, a fictional prime minister contradicts a US president during a press conference.

Earlier this year, Hermer said he regretted “clumsy” remarks in which he compared calls for the UK to depart from international law and arguments made in 1930s Germany.

In a speech, he criticised politicians who argue the UK should abandon “the constraints of international law in favour of raw power”, saying similar claims had been made by legal theorists in Germany in the years before the Nazis came to power.

Some Conservatives and Reform UK have called for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

After the recent military escalations between Iran and Israel, where the U.S. was involved symbolically but in a limited manner, the focus of the international strategic community has shifted back to one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints: the Strait of Hormuz. Although the matter of closing such a waterway has been around in various forms of threats since the 1980s, the current situation in the Middle East is a clear signal that those threats are going to be actual events instead of mere rhetoric. Accordingly, the issue of how the world would react to a decision of Iran to shut down or impose restrictions on the Strait is now not a merely theoretical discussion—it is a current situation that is capable of affecting the whole world.

Why Hormuz Matters

The Strait of Hormuz acts as the main artery through which around 20% of the world’s oil for trade and more than 30% of global liquefied natural gas are transported each day. Its narrow geography—only 33 kilometers wide at the narrowest point—makes it a region that is unstoppably within Iran’s influence. This location is critical as it is the area where the Middle East’s vast oil resources are transported to the world’s markets. A conflict here would not only be equivalent to cutting off the energy export infrastructure in Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar but also to a power outage in international energy markets. In a global economic scenario currently facing various challenges such as supply chain realignments, inflationary trends, and geopolitical rivalries, the closure of Hormuz would not just be an energy crisis; it would be a major systemic event.

Military Feasibility and Constraints

Technically, Iran definitely has the capabilities to disrupt or block the Strait for a short period. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has multiple layers of assets in the region, such as fast-attack boats, coastal missile batteries, naval mines, and drone systems. It has been building and rehearsing asymmetric strategies that are intended to fool the shipping lanes and stop the U.S. from intervening in its navy; these strategies are implemented through repeated exercises. On the other hand, Iran could carry out such a closure or be the major disruptor, but the continuation of it would be difficult. This move would most probably incite a very strong and well-coordinated military counterattack from the United States and its partners, which may also include a multinational maritime security coalition, apart from those opponents mentioned. Besides that, the international community would certainly impose severe penalties on Iran in the form of retaliatory actions, diplomatic isolation, and economic free-fall. Therefore, it is possible that Tehran wants to continue to calibrate its harassment or partial closures instead of implementing a full-scale blockade.

Energy Security and Economic Fallout

An incident in the Strait of Hormuz would cause a very rapid increase in oil and gas prices, and Brent crude would probably go up to more than $150 a barrel in the first few days of the crisis. Energy-exporting countries—especially in Asia, where China, India, South Korea, and Japan are the main players—would not only have energy shortages but also energy price inflation. After the Ukraine crisis, Europe changed the direction of its gas imports to Gulf LNG, but it is still going to be affected. Though some capacity exists in the form of overland pipelines, like Saudi Arabia’s East-West system, these alternatives are not sufficient to make up for the shortage of the flow through Hormuz. The impact would be felt globally—through inflation, increased shipping insurance charges, currency instability, and lack of investor confidence in emerging markets. At the end of the day, the economic cost would not be limited to energy consumers alone; it would also hit the very core of the global economic interdependence structure.

Diplomatic and Legal Implications

International law legally defines the Strait of Hormuz as an international strait—that means it is the free navigation route allowed for ships under the law of the sea. This right of passage is given to ships registered as UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). Although Iran is not a party to UNCLOS and they firmly believe that they have the right to issue regulations for traffic, especially at times of insecurity, they are nonetheless free to assert their prerogatives. This situation of uncertainty in the interpretation of the laws only goes to highlight a bigger issue: necks like Hormuz are not only regulated by law but also by power. When the legal norms conflict with geopolitical situations, the implementation of the law is more influenced by the use of force, negotiations, or peacekeeping units than by court decisions. In the course of the global order’s evolution toward multipolarity, traditional means of enforcement are more and more divided; the international community has to come to terms with the fact that maritime governance is at its end.

Global Responses and Strategic Calculus

If Iran were to interfere with the transit in the Strait of Hormuz in a serious manner, it would necessitate a strong reaction from the United States. The latter has always considered the freedom of navigation as a vital interest. To this end, they could send their naval forces, form coalitions as in 2019 and carry out Operation Sentinel, or ask the UN Security Council to solve the issue, though Russia or China are likely to block any resolution. European countries could request the de-escalation and the mediation of the conflict, but they do not have a unified military force in the region. China and India, on the other hand, need to think about their next moves: they can’t lose their energy security, but they shouldn’t look like they’re sticking with the West; otherwise, they’ll be in trouble with their other friends. Russia might be in a good position to profit from the rising oil prices, but on the other hand, it has to be careful not to damage its partnerships in the region. Most importantly, nations in the Gulf region such as Oman, Qatar, and the UAE are expected to be at the forefront of diplomatic efforts to calm down tensions, using their secret communication channels to reach a truce, thus preventing the situation from spiraling into open warfare.

Conclusion: A Chokepoint as a Global Fault Line

The hypothetical closing of the Strait of Hormuz has attracted attention not only to it as a regional conflict but also as a challenge for the international system. It displays, first of all, the weakness of energy and trade flows, which are extremely dependent on special narrow geographic corridors. Oddly enough, after so many years of discussions about energy diversification and supply chain resilience, the world still remains terribly dependent on several maritime corridors that are at the center of geopolitical struggles. The second point is that this event shows the absence of any credible regional security framework in the Persian Gulf. Several next attempts to build inclusive architectures—whether led by the United States, Russia, or even China—were not successful in creating crisis prevention or conflict resolution mechanisms. As a result of this situation, the region is no longer strategically stable but becomes reactive all the time.

On the third point, the whole situation with Hormuz undermines those sea governance foundations that still remain. Legal concepts like transit passage only work when they are supported by a multilateral consensus and have credible enforcement. In their absence, rules give way to power politics, and coercive signaling becomes a tool of diplomacy. Way, The precedent it would establish at Existing even time would lead to other chokepoints at play: the Suez Canal, the Bab el-Mandeb, and the South China Sea. In conclusion, the crisis would be a strong reassertion of the supply of preventive diplomacy. The current escalatory spiral between Iran and Israel, compounded by the lack of sustained dialogue mechanisms, leaves the door open for miscalculation and unintended conflict. Restoring regional diplomacy, be it through a new Gulf security initiative or improved nuclear talks, is not an option—it is a must.

In conclusion, the Strait of Hormuz is definitely not only a maritime corridor. It is a political fault line where local crises meet with global insecurity. The manner in which the international community deals with or neglects the danger could be the factor that decides the path of world peace in the next ten years.

Here are the key events on day 11 of the Israel-Iran conflict.

Here’s where things stand on Monday, June 23:

Fighting

• Iran has fired ballistic missiles at the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the United States’ largest military installation in the Middle East. Doha said the attack was intercepted and there were no casualties.
• Fellow Gulf countries Bahrain and Kuwait – which also host US facilities – joined Qatar in closing their airspace, then reopened them.
• Earlier, Israel had struck Tehran’s Evin Prison, notorious for holding political activists. Iranian state television shared surveillance footage of the strike, which reportedly blew the facility’s gate open.
• Explosions were heard on the western outskirts of the southwestern Iranian city of Ahvaz, capital of oil-rich Khuzestan province, the Fars news agency reported.
• Tasnim news agency reported a strike at an electricity feeder station in the Evin neighbourhood in north Tehran.
• Earlier, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said his country had attacked “regime targets and government repression bodies in the heart of Tehran”, including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command centres.
• Israel also carried out a strike on the Fordow enrichment facility, a day after the US hit the underground site south of Tehran with so-called “bunker buster” bombs.
• The Israeli military issued an evacuation threat to residents of Tehran, telling them to stay away from weapons production centres and military bases.
• Iranian state television said on Monday that the country had targeted the Israeli cities of Haifa and Tel Aviv. It claimed the majority of its projectiles fired since the early hours of the day had successfully reached their targets.
• Sirens sounded across Israel before noon on Monday, with a large number of impacts recorded in several areas, including the Ashdod area in southern Israel and the Lachish area, south of Jerusalem.

Casualties and disruptions

• Eleven days into the conflict, large numbers of Tehran’s 10 million population have reportedly fled.
• After Israel’s strike on Evin Prison, Iran’s IRIB state broadcaster released video showing rescue workers combing the flattened wreckage of a building at the prison, carrying a wounded man on a stretcher.
• Iranian power company Tavanir said there were power cuts in the Iranian capital, Tehran.
• In Qatar, prior to Iran’s attack on Al Udeid, the US and the United Kingdom had urged their citizens in the country to “shelter in place”.
• Britain said on Monday that a Royal Air Force flight carrying 63 British nationals and their dependents out of Israel had left Tel Aviv.
• A number of airlines, including Kuwait Airways, Finnair and Singapore Airlines, have suspended operations in the Middle East. Air India said it was not only halting operations to the region, but also stopping flights to and from the US east coast and Europe.

Politics and diplomacy

• Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that Israel and Iran had “fully agreed” a “Complete and Total CEASEFIRE” to be phased in over a 24-hour period, after which “THE 12 DAY WAR” would be officially over. Iran or Israel have yet to comment on the plan.

• His announcement came after Iran’s attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Trump thanked Tehran for giving him ”early notice” of the attack, which he described as a ”very weak response” to the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. In a separate post, he thanked the emir of Qatar for his peace efforts.

• A spokesperson for the Qatari Foreign Ministry said that the country considered the Iranian attack to be a “surprise”, announcing the situation in the country was safe.

• Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei posted on his Farsi-language X account: “We have not violated anyone’s rights, nor will we ever accept anyone violating ours, and we will not surrender to anyone’s violation; this is the logic of the Iranian nation.”

• Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a statement posted by his ministry on Telegram that Iran would be ready to respond again in case of further action by the US.

• Earlier in the day, Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Khamenei, said bases used by US forces “in the region or elsewhere” could be attacked – that evening, Iran targeted Al Udeid in Qatar.
• Abdolrahim Mousavi, Iran’s armed forces chief of staff, pledged that the country would take “firm action” in response to US strikes on key nuclear sites the day before. “This crime and desecration will not go unanswered,” he said on state television.
• Ebrahim Zolfaqari, spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya central military headquarters, addressed US intervention in the war in a video statement, saying: “Mr Trump, the gambler, you may start this war, but we will be the ones to end it.”
• Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency said a parliamentary committee had approved a general plan to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
• Iran’s mission to the United Nations said the US, the UK, France, Israel and IAEA chief Rafael Grossi were responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians and the destruction of infrastructure.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed attacks on Iran as “unprovoked” and “unjustified” in a Moscow meeting with Tehran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
• Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, “Our strategic partnership with Iran is unbreakable,” but was not drawn on the question of whether Iran had requested military help – or whether any help would be forthcoming.
• After Israel’s attack on Tehran’s Evin Prison, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar wrote “Viva la libertad!”, Spanish for “long live liberty”, on X.
• French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said that the Israeli strike on Tehran’s Evin Prison, which holds some French prisoners, was unacceptable.
• China’s UN ambassador, Fu Cong, said US credibility was “damaged” after its bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, warning the conflict could “go out of control”, according to the state broadcaster.
• German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said of Sunday’s US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites: “Yes, it is not without risk, but leaving it as it was wasn’t an option either.”
• British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said his country stood ready to “defend our personnel, our assets and those of our allies and partners”.
• NATO chief Mark Rutte said alliance members had “long agreed that Iran must not develop a nuclear weapon” and called an Iranian atomic bomb his “greatest fear”.
• US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called on China to help deter Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for one-fifth of the world’s oil supply and a potential lever for retaliatory action.
• The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said closing the strait would be “extremely dangerous”.
• US President Trump posted an online message on oil production to the US Department of Energy, encouraging it to “drill, baby, drill”, and saying, “I mean now.”
• Reza Pahlavi, the long-exiled son of Iran’s toppled shah, but not seen as a player with any real influence in Iran itself, warned the US and Europe not to throw a “lifeline” to Iran’s current leadership. “This is our Berlin Wall moment,” he said in an interview with the AFP news agency.

Dissenting justice warns court actions expose ‘thousands to the risk of torture or death’.

A divided Supreme Court has allowed the administration of United States President Donald Trump to restart swift removals of migrants to countries other than their homeland, lifting a court order that requires they get a chance to challenge the deportations.

The high court majority did not detail its reasoning in the brief order issued on Monday, as is typical on its emergency docket. All three liberal justices dissented.

In May, immigration officials put eight people on a plane to South Sudan, though they were diverted to a US naval base in Djibouti after a judge stepped in.

The refugees and migrants from countries including Myanmar, Vietnam and Cuba had been convicted of violent crimes in the US. Immigration officials have said that they were unable to return them quickly to their home countries.

The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump’s administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living undocumented in the US.

In a scathing 19-page dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court’s action exposes “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”

“The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,” she wrote in the dissent, which was joined by the other two liberal judges, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Lawyers for some of the migrants who had been on the flight to South Sudan said they would continue to press their case in court. “The ramifications of Supreme Court’s order will be horrifying,” said Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, meanwhile, said in a social media post that the decision was a “MAJOR win for the safety and security of the American people”.

The department did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.

District judge concerned about danger facing deportees

The Supreme Court action halts an order from US District Judge Brian E Murphy in Boston, who decided in April that people must have a chance to argue that deportation to a third country would put them in danger – even if they have otherwise exhausted their legal appeals.

He found that the May deportation flight to South Sudan violated his order and told immigration authorities to allow people to raise those concerns through their lawyers. Immigration officials housed the migrants in a converted shipping container in Djibouti, where they and the officers guarding them faced rough conditions.

The administration has reached agreements with other countries, including Panama and Costa Rica, to house immigrants because some countries do not accept US deportations. South Sudan, meanwhile, has endured repeated waves of violence since gaining independence in 2011.

Murphy’s order does not prohibit deportations to third countries. But it says migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in serious danger of torture if sent to another country.

The third-country deportation case has been one of several legal flashpoints as the Trump administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president’s policies.

Another order from Murphy, who was appointed by former Democratic President Joe Biden, resulted in the Trump administration returning a gay Guatemalan man who had been wrongly deported to Mexico, where he says he had been raped and extorted.

The man, identified in court papers as OCG, was the first person known to have been returned to US custody after deportation since the start of Trump’s second term.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to meet a new Nato target to spend 5% of the UK’s GDP on national security by 2035.

At a Nato summit in the Netherlands, 32 member countries including the UK are expected to agree the 5% goal, with 3.5% to go on core defence and the remaining 1.5% on defence-related areas such as resilience and security.

The split target is aimed at placating US President Donald Trump, who has urged Nato allies to spend more, while giving cash-strapped EU countries flexibility over how they meet the target.

Downing Street has argued measures on energy and tackling smuggling gangs could be classified as security spending.

Speaking ahead of the two-day summit, Sir Keir said the UK had to “navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest”.

“After all, economic security is national security, and through this strategy we will bring the whole of society with us, creating jobs, growth and wages for working people.”

Nato (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is made up of 32 member countries who agree to defend each other if attacked.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Trump’s re-election as US president last year, members of the organisation have faced increased pressure to boost their defence spending.

Countries had been expected to spend at least 2% of their national income – or GDP – on defence, although last year, only 23 hit that target – an increase from three in 2014.

In January, Trump said 2% was “not enough” and that Nato allies should be spending 5%.

And speaking last year before his re-election, he said he would “encourage” aggressors to “do whatever the hell they want” to European allies who don’t pay their way.

In February, Sir Keir set out plans to increase the UK’s defence spending, as opposed to national security spending, to 2.5% by April 2027 and expressed a “clear ambition” to reach 3% by 2034 if economic conditions allowed.

On Monday, the government said it expected to reach the target of spending 4.1% of GDP on national security by 2027.

The 1.5% element of the 5% Nato target is for what is described as “resilience”, such as border security and protection against cyber attacks.

For the UK, this latter element is expected to be met by the year after next, with core defence spending reaching 2.6% by then.

Getting core defence spending to 3.5% isn’t expected until 2035 – two general elections away – and Downing Street hasn’t said how it will be paid for.

Alongside the spending commitment, the government published its National Security Strategy which said the UK needed to be more “competitive and robust” in science, education, trade and frontier technology.

It also sought to stress that investment in defence would be felt “directly in the pockets of working people” pointing to new jobs that would be created.

The summit will be Mark Rutte’s first as secretary general of Nato. Speaking at a press conference on Monday, the former Dutch prime minister said the 5% spending commitment was “a quantum leap that is ambitious, historic and fundamental to securing our future”.

However, it is unclear how nations will meet the target or whether they will at all.

On Sunday evening, Spain claimed it had secured an opt-out, something later denied by Rutte.

Ukraine is not a member of Nato and although President Volodymyr Zelensky has been invited to the summit dinner he will not be taking part in discussions of the North Atlantic Council.

Last week, Ed Arnold from the defence think tank Rusi told the BBC contentious issues – including a new Russia strategy – had been removed from the summit’s agenda.

‘What happens to a dream deferred, Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun’? Langston Hughes’ haunting question is beginning to echo uncomfortably in the political lifeline of Floyd Shivambu. Once a fierce and eloquent voice in Parliament’s red berets, today Shivambu finds himself marginalized, demoted to the political backbenches of the newly formed MK Party (MKP). A career that once burned with promise now flickers in uncertainty.

Was his fall from political prominence an accident, or was it engineered?. From the commanding front benches of the EFF to the shadows of the MKP, Shivambu’s descent raises critical questions. Was his departure from the EFF a genuine political realignment, or a cleverly orchestrated move to destabilize Julius Malema’s party by luring away one of its sharpest minds? Could this have been a strategic masterstroke by the likes of Jacob Zuma, a political chess player known for his ability to manipulate alliances and rivalries to his advantage?

If Shivambu was poached, it was certainly not for a promotion. Within months of joining MKP, he appears to have been politically neutered. Public disputes, such as the reported spat with Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, Jacob Zuma’s daughter, have only added fuel to speculation that Shivambu was never meant to flourish in MKP, only to falter. Was he simply unaware of the unwritten rule that MKP is less a political party and more a Zuma family affair?

Some argue that this was less about strategy and more about power consolidation, not just weakening the EFF, but silencing an independent voice that could challenge the growing cult of personality around the Zuma’s within MKP. In that reading, Shivambu was not just collateral damage, he was the target.

Progressive Forces Eating Their Own? This unfolding saga raises disturbing questions about the nature of South Africa’s so-called progressive forces. How did a movement born from struggle and revolution devolve into petty factionalism and guerrilla-style politics against its own members? While the Democratic Alliance continues to mount a serious opposition to transformative policies, those who once stood together for economic emancipation are now sniping at each other from inside their trenches. It’s not just a tragedy for Shivambu. It’s a betrayal of the broader transformation agenda. Politically, Shivambu faces a daunting crossroads. The MKP seems to be squeezing him out. A return to the EFF is unlikely, not least because of the silence, or strategic distancing by Julius Malema and senior EFF leaders regarding Shivambu’s current woes. Their silence may be a political statement in itself. Or perhaps, they saw it coming.

Shivambu’s options appear limited. He could attempt to reinvent himself as an independent political voice, but without a party infrastructure or public platform, the road is steep. Alternatively, he might pivot to civil society, academia, or media spaces where his intellect and experience could still influence discourse. But make no mistake, the days of legislative thunder from the EFF’s deputy president may be behind him.

Political commentators like Tshidi Madia of Eyewitness News and others have noted the oddity of Shivambu’s muted role within MKP. Once celebrated for his incisive critiques and command of policy detail, he is now a near-invisible figure in a party defined by populist rhetoric and internal power dynamics. Madia and others suggest this was less an ideological shift and more a miscalculation on Shivambu’s part, one that may cost him his political future.

MKP’s Blind Spot In its apparent mission to sideline Shivambu reveals its own weaknesses. A political movement that cannot tolerate internal diversity or accommodate experienced leadership may soon find itself irrelevant. The very act of ejecting those with independent thought betrays a deeper insecurity  and an inability to transform from a personality cult into a credible political force. Floyd Shivambu may not have been perfect, very few in politics are but his marginalization marks more than just a personal tragedy. It reflects a broader crisis in South African progressive politics, a moment when internal rivalries and unchecked egos are dismantling movements from within. If a figure as pivotal and principled as Shivambu can be cast aside so easily, what hope is there for unity, let alone transformation?

In the end, Hughes’ poem lingers: “Or does it explode?” Time will tell whether Shivambu’s deferred dream leads to a rebirth, or the quiet explosion of a once-promising career. The biggest takeaway from the Shivambu-MKP debacle is the deepening disunity among parties that claim to represent the economically marginalized and working-class majority. Rather than building a unified front against inequality and state capture by elite interests, progressive parties are cannibalizing each other.

 By 2026, South Africa is likely to experience more splinters and splinter parties formed from fallouts within MKP and EFF. Weaker coordination at municipal and ward levels, especially in metros like Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni, and eThekwini. Increased voter confusion as ideological lines blur between former comrades turned competitors. The 2026 local elections could be a watershed moment not because of who wins outright, but because it will reflect whether progressive politics in South Africa can regroup or whether it has entered a cycle of permanent fragmentation. Unless bold leadership emerges to build bridges, articulate a unifying agenda, and restore public trust, the progressive forces risk becoming irrelevant spectators in the very struggle they once led.

Qatar was the “obvious choice” for Iranian retaliation against the US because it hosts the largest US military base in the Middle East while also acting as a trusted intermediary for Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Dorsa Jabbari explained after the missile attack near Doha.

Iran has responded to the United States’ direct involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict by targeting its military assets in the Middle East.

On Monday, Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, announced that bases used by US forces “in the region or elsewhere” could be attacked in retaliation for US attacks on Iran’s underground nuclear sites the previous day.

Later that evening, explosions were heard over Qatar’s capital, Doha, as Iran attacked Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US military base in the Middle East.

Here’s everything you need to know about Al Udeid:

What is Al Udeid?

Gas-rich Qatar, which lies 190km (120 miles) south of Iran across the Gulf, is home to the US’s largest military base in the region, Al Udeid.

The 24-hectare (60-acre) base, in the desert outside the capital Doha, was set up in 1996 and is the forward headquarters for US Central Command, which directs US military operations in a huge swathe of territory stretching from Egypt in the west to Kazakhstan in the east.

It houses the Qatar Emiri Air Force, the US Air Force, the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force, and other foreign forces.

It houses around 10,000 troops.

Earlier this year, The Hill, a Washington, DC-based newspaper, reported that Al Udeid’s “long, well-maintained runways enable rapid deployment, making it a critical component of US force projection”.

The Hill also reported that Qatar’s investment in Al Udeid has kept it “at the forefront of military readiness while saving US taxpayers billions of dollars”. Over the years, it said, Qatar had spent more than $8bn upgrading infrastructure.

The base has played a central role in air campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in humanitarian missions, including the 2021 evacuation of Kabul.

Why is it in the news?

On Monday, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry announced it had temporarily closed its airspace amid threats of Iranian retaliation.

“The competent authorities announce the temporary suspension of air traffic in the country’s airspace, as part of a set of precautionary measures taken based on developments in the region,” the ministry said.

The closure came several hours after the US and UK embassies urged their citizens in Qatar to shelter in place out of what it said was “an abundance of caution”.

Later, news agency Reuters cited a Western diplomat as saying there had been a credible Iranian threat against Al Udeid since noon on Monday.

That evening, Qatar’s Defence Minister, cited by Al Jazeera, said the country’s air defences had intercepted missiles directed at Al Udeid.

Was Al Udeid prepared for the attack?

Before targeting Iran’s nuclear sites, it appears that the US started taking precautionary measures.

As US President Donald Trump mulled direct involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict, news agency AFP reported that dozens of US military aircraft were no longer on the tarmac at the air base, basing its assessment on satellite images published by Planet Labs PBC.

Nearly 40 military aircraft – including transport planes like the Hercules C-130 and reconnaissance aircraft – were parked on the tarmac at the base, the regional headquarters of the Pentagon’s Central Command, on June 5. But in an image taken on June 19, only three aircraft were visible.

One US official who spoke to Reuters said aircraft that were not in hardened shelters had been moved from Al Udeid base. Additionally, he said US Navy vessels had been moved from a port in Bahrain, where the US military’s 5th fleet is located.

“It is not an uncommon practice,” the official said. “Force protection is the priority.”

Was Al Udeid involved in US attacks on nuclear sites?

No.

Prior to the US attack on nuclear sites on Sunday, it was reported that B-2 bombers were heading to Guam – a ruse, as it turned out.

As all eyes looked West, seven B-2 stealth bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri in the US at 00:01 EDT (04:01 GMT), according to the Pentagon. The top-secret flights flew straight over the Atlantic to Iran.

None of the US bases in the Middle East were deployed in the US offensive on Iran.

How has Qatar responded to the attack on Al Udeid?

Qatar condemned the attack on the air base, calling it a “flagrant violation” of its sovereignty.

“We express the State of Qatar’s strong condemnation of the attack on Al Udeid Air Base by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and consider it a flagrant violation of the State of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace, as well as of international law,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed Al-Ansari said in a statement.

Iran and Qatar enjoy fraternal diplomatic relations. Qatar has condemned the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

The RAF has evacuated 63 British nationals from Israel as the country continues to exchange fire with Iran, the foreign secretary has said.

The flight left Tel Aviv on Monday afternoon, taking vulnerable Britons and their immediate family to Cyprus.

A British national was also injured in Israel during an Iranian missile attack, David Lammy said.

In a statement to MPs, Lammy repeated his plea to Iran to return to the negotiating table following the US’s strike on its nuclear programme.

He said: “My message for Tehran was clear, take the off ramp, dial this thing down, and negotiate with the United States seriously and immediately.

“Be in no doubt, we are prepared to defend our personnel, our assets and those of our allies and partners.”

The RAF A400 aircraft departed Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport with 63 British nationals plus their immediate family who are eligible to travel.

The BBC understands Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis is one of the passengers returning to the UK after being evacuated from Israel by the RAF.

The Foreign Office said further flights would be based on demand and the security situation. British nationals still in Israel have been urged to register their presence with the UK government.

Downing Street said “around 1,000” people had asked for a seat on an evacuation flight – a quarter of the 4,000 who had registered their presence in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the Foreign Office.

Israeli airspace has been closed – leaving thousands of British nationals stranded – since the conflict started earlier this month when Israel attacked nuclear sites in Iran, prompting Tehran to respond with missile strikes.

Lammy said the British national injured in a strike in Israel was being offered consular support.

BBC News has approached the Foreign Office for more details.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump have claimed that Iran has been preparing to build a nuclear weapon. Iran has repeatedly denied planning to do so.

Urging Iran to return to the negotiating table, Lammy told the Commons: “The alternative is an even more destructive and far-reaching conflict, which could have unpredictable consequences.”

He added the situation “presents serious risk to British interests” in the Middle East.

British nationals in Qatar have also been advised to shelter in place until further notice.