NEWS

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.

A new poll says most Europeans accept they must prepare for war.

This comes in the wake of President  Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities at the weekend.

The multi-country polling report, published ahead of the 2025 NATO Summit, shows widespread support across Europe for increases in defence spending, scaled rearmament programmes, and the reintroduction of mandatory military service. 

Polling by the  European Council on Foreign Relations suggests Europeans remain committed to Ukraine, and will not countenance withdrawing military support, pressuring Kyiv to cede occupied territories, or lifting sanctions on Russia if the U.S. changes course. 

Despite anti-EU rhetoric from the White House, and rising anti-American sentiment in a number of European countries, many citizens still believe the U.S. can be relied upon for nuclear deterrence and a military presence on the continent. There is also widespread optimism that the Transatlantic Alliance can be repaired in the future.   

In their analysis, published on Monday, ECFR report authors and foreign policy experts, Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard, argue that the second coming of Trump has already had far-reaching impacts and led to a breakout of ‘political cross-dressing’ in Europe. They believe today’s disorder presents an opportunity for those of the political mainstream to “get out of the business of defending the status-quo – and reinvent European identity for a revolutionary new world”. 

The trajectory of Donald Trump’s second presidency is upending European opinion, vis-a-vis defence and security, and forcing citizens to accept that they must prepare for a world at war, according to a new multi-country polling report published today by the (ECFR). 

Data from the think-tank’s latest study suggest sthat the second coming of Trump has changed not only the internal political system of the United States (U.S.), but how Europeans view their own security and identities. It points to a fundamental shift, away from the Transatlantic Alliance and Washington-backed security guarantees, towards a more autonomous Europe that must ramp up its own capabilities. This has changed Europe from a ‘peace project’ to one that is now scaling, at speed, in preparation for war, with publics in a number of leading Atlanticist states (including Denmark, Germany and the UK) being among those most confident about the need for Europe to take care of its own security and defence.  

Published to coincide with this week’s 2025 NATO summit in The Hague, the multi-country poll of 12 European countries (Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) reveals widespread support across Europe for an increase in defence spending (50% on average across 12 polled countries vs. 24% opposing), a commitment to maintaining military support to Ukraine in the event of the U.S. withdrawal (59%), and backing for developing an alternative European nuclear deterrent that does not rely on the US (54%).  

The dataset, which was commissioned through leading pollsters, YouGov, Datapraxis and Norstat, also indicates far-reaching ideological shifts within political parties following Trump’s return to the White House. It shows that Europe’s far-right have, in the space of six months, transformed themselves from ‘sovereigntists’ to ‘internationalists’, and become ideological allies of the U.S. President in his quest to remake the ‘world order’. Several mainstream parties have also similarly recast themselves as national-minded advocates, and agitators for a more autonomous Europe, with the power to push back at U.S. interference. This transformation constitutes a form of “political cross-dressing”, according to the report’s authors, Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard.  

Krastev and Leonard, in their analysis, note that while many in Europe are sceptical of Trump, and want to see greater continent-wide rearmament and defence, this does not translate into full confidence that the EU can stand on its own. The authors argue that while Europeans are convinced that their governments should part with American policy when it comes to Ukraine, they are relaxed about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees and the possibility of rekindling bands across the Atlantic once Trump leaves office.   

They believe Europe, today, is responding to the Trump ‘revolution’ in a similar manner to the 2016 Brexit vote – by “stepping back” and “buying time to prepare for the coming leap”. That so many citizens still believe the U.S. can be counted on to provide a nuclear deterrence (48%), and a military presence on the continent (55%), speaks to this, they argue. They also point to widely felt optimism surrounding the future of the Transatlantic Alliance (with 45% of respondents across the surveyed countries believing it will be ‘repaired’), and a majority view (54%) that the EU can avert a trade war with Washington, as further examples. While the authors see merit in this “wait and see” approach, they also encourage European governments to use Trump’s prominence to reshape their own politics. Today’s disorder, they write, has presented a path for the political mainstream to “get out of the business of defending the status-quo”, and an opportunity for them to recreate a European identity for a “revolutionary new world”. 

Key findings from ECFR’s multi-country survey include: 

There is widespread agreement in Europe that defence spending must rise. Majorities in Poland (70%), Denmark (70%), the UK (57%), Estonia (56%) and Portugal (54%), support (either ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’) the idea of increasing national defence spending – with majorities in Denmark and Estonia (the only two countries where the other question was asked) also in favour of increasing defence spending to 5% of national GDP. Pluralities in Romania (50%), Spain (46%), France (45%), Hungary (45%), Germany (47%), and Switzerland (40%) also expressed support for increased defence spending. Italy, however, is an outlier to this trend, with a 57% majority either ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ opposed, and only 17% supporting a hike in defence spending.  
 

Majorities also favour reintroducing mandatory military service. Respondents in France (62%), Germany (53%), and Poland (51%) are the strongest supporters for such a move, with the softest support coming from Hungary (32%), Spain (37%) and the UK (37%) (this question was not asked in Denmark, Estonia, and Switzerland because military service is already mandatory there). Those within the age groupings 60-69 and 70+ are keenest on the idea of mandatory military service (with 54% and 58%, respectively, indicating their support). This plummets, however, when put to the youngest demographic group (those ages 18-29). On average, just 27% of this group – who are of age to serve in any armed conflict – expressed support, while a majority, 57%, indicated that they would oppose such a move.  

Europeans are committed to Ukraine, irrespective of U.S. policy. ECFR data shows that majorities or pluralities in eleven of the twelve countries surveyed are against the idea of Europe withdrawing its military support for Ukraine, pushing Ukraine to give up on territory occupied by Russia, or lifting economic sanctions on Russia – irrespective of a U.S. policy shift across these points. Respondents in Denmark (78%), Portugal (74%), the UK (73%), and Estonia (68%) are the staunchest supporters of continued military support in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. Similarly, those in Denmark (72%), Portugal (71%), the United Kingdom (69%), and Estonia (68%) are the most opposed to the idea of pushing Ukraine to give up occupied territory, if the U.S. adopted such an approach; and are also the strongest opponents of lifting economic sanctions against Russia, if the U.S.  behaved in this manner (Denmark, 77%; the UK, 71%; Estonia, 69%; and Poland, 68%). 

Trump’s hostility towards Europe has given rise to anti-American sentiment. This is particularly true in Denmark, where 86% of respondents believe the U.S. political system is ‘broken’, and where the share of population that consider Trump’s re-election a bad thing for American citizens has increased from 54% to 76% per cent in just six months. A similar picture emerges among Portuguese citizens, where 70% view the U.S. political system, today, as ‘broken’, compared to just 60%, when ECFR asked the same question in November 2020, following Joe Biden’s election victory. In the UK, and Germany, majorities of 74% and 67% also think the U.S system is broken. And, even in traditionally pro-American Poland, the share of citizens sharing this view has risen from 25% to 36% since November 2020.  

There is scepticism about whether the EU can effectively decouple from the U.S.  on defence and security. Respondents inDenmark and Portugal are the most optimistic about achieving this, with 52% and 50% of citizens, respectively, believing it is ‘possible’ for the EU to become independent of the U.S. on defence and security in the next five years. Scepticism is the most pronounced in Italy and Hungary, where 54% and 51%, respectively, see EU autonomy on security and defence as ‘very difficult’ or ‘practically impossible’ to achieve in the next five years. Elsewhere, respondents are torn, including in Romania (45% think it is possible vs. 39% think it is difficult or impossible), France (44% vs. 39%), Germany (44% vs. 45%), Poland (38% vs. 48%), Estonia (41% vs. 49%) and Spain (43% vs. 47%). Europeans are also sceptical about whether the EU can put aside its internal differences and become a global power, capable of competing economically with the U.S. and China. Belief that the EU can become such a player is soft – and a minority view – In eleven of the twelve countries polled by ECFR (with Danes being the sole outliers in their optimism).  

Many also harbour the belief that the Transatlantic Alliance will be repaired, once Trump leaves office. There is a widespread expectation that the transatlantic relationship will improve once Trump leaves office, with this view most evident in Denmark (62%), Portugal (54%), Germany and Spain (52%), and France (50%). This view is the weakest in Hungary (20%) and Romania (28%), where relatively many people – 24% and 19% respectively – believe Donald Trump hasn’t really damaged the transatlantic relationship. Only a minority in every country – and 22% on average, across 12 countries polled – are of an opinion that not only Donald Trump has damaged the relationship between Europe and the USA but also that ‘the damage will probably last even once Trump has left office’. Besides, the prevailing view, across the twelve countries surveyed by ECFR, is that Europe can continue to rely on U.S. nuclear deterrence (48% of citizens, on average across polled markets, share this view), maintain the U.S. military presence on the continent (55%), and avoid a trade war with Washington (54%).  
 

Trump 2.0 has prompted a revolution in not just Europe’s geopolitical – but also in the political identity of its main political parties. Trump’s return to power appears to have driven an outbreak of ‘political cross-dressing’ in Europe. Supporters of populist parties are no longer exclusively against the status-quo – they are now in favour of the Trumpian counter-project. And those who back mainstream parties are no longer simply in favour of the status-quo – they are now increasingly drawing energy from being defenders of national sovereignty against Trump. As a result, the European public is currently strongly polarised in its perceptions of the U.S. political system. For example, voters of the right-wing parties, Fidesz (Hungary), PiS (Poland), Brothers of Italy (Italy), AfD (Germany) and Vox (Spain), have a predominantly positive view of America – while the mainstream electorates in their countries hold a mostly negative view of the U.S. political system. Furthermore, being able to treat the U.S. as the model appears to allow voters of the far-right to become even more outspoken in their criticism of the EU. This represents a huge leap for supporters of some populist parties – like those of PiS (Poland), Vox (Spain) or Chega (Portugal) – where the perception that the EU is broken has now become majoritarian, after being previously held only be a minority of their voters. Conversely, voters for mainstream parties appear to be rallying around the European flag – most visibly in Germany and in France. The result of these various changes in public opinion is the emergence of a reverse relationship in the perception of the U.S. and the EU, which wasn’t there before.  

Commenting on the multi-country survey report, co-author and founding director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, Mark Leonard, said: 

“Donald Trump’s revolution has come to Europe – overturning its political and geopolitical identity. Our poll shows that Europeans feel unsafe and that Trump is driving demand for increased defence spending, the reintroduction of military service, and an extension of nuclear capabilities across much of Europe.  

He is also transforming domestics politics in a similar way to Brexit. Far-right parties are no longer simply seen as anti-system; they have become part of a pro-Trump internationale. On the other hand, many mainstream parties are reinventing themselves as defenders of sovereignty against Trumpian chaos.” 

Co-author and chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, Ivan Krastev, added: 

“The real effect of Trump’s second coming is that the United States now presents a credible model for Europe’s far-right.  

To be pro-American today mostly means to be sceptical of the EU, to be pro-European means being critical of Trump’s America.” 

Among the dozens killed are 13 aid seekers, as NGO warns Israel is also deliberately blocking energy access.

At least 43 people have been killed in various Israeli attacks since dawn as the military relentlessly pounds the besieged enclave, medical sources say, with the overall Palestinian death toll in the war surpassing a staggering 56,000.

Those killed on Monday include at least 20 aid seekers who lost their lives while desperately trying to access food for their families at distribution centres run by the controversial United States- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which the United Nations has condemned for its “weaponisation” of aid.

The killings are the latest in a wave of daily carnage, targeting hungry Palestinians who continue to make the perilous journey to the food distribution points. Critics have slammed the sites as “human slaughterhouses” amid a worsening hunger and looming famine crisis.

Israeli attacks on Palestinians near aid centres have killed more than 400 people and wounded about 1,000 since the GHF began distributions on May 27.

Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud, reporting from Gaza City, said Israel is engaged in its conflict with Iran while it also continues “the killing of Palestinians across the Gaza Strip with deadly air strikes on tents or residential homes”.

“Hungry crowds gather at food distribution centres in Rafah or the Netzarim Corridor. So far, 13 aid seekers have been shot dead today. They are among 30 people killed by Israel’s military since the early hours,” Mahmoud said.

Meanwhile, the Wafa news agency reported that at least four people were killed and several others wounded by an Israeli air attack on a residential building in northern Gaza’s Jabalia.

Three others, all brothers, were killed by Israeli forces while they were inspecting their damaged home in the al-Salateen area of Beit Lahiya, in northern Gaza.

In central Gaza, al-Awda Hospital in the Nuseirat refugee camp announced it had received the bodies of two Palestinians and treated 35 others injured in Israeli strikes on crowds gathered along Salah al-Din Street.

Sixteen of the wounded were in critical condition and transferred to other hospitals in the central governorate, Wafa said.

Israeli artillery also shelled the Shujayea neighbourhood in eastern Gaza City.

The latest casualty figures bring the number of people killed in the territory since the start of Israel’s 20-month war more than 56,000, with at least 131,559 wounded.

Energy crisis

The attacks come as the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) warned that the lack of reliable energy sources is a key threat to survival in Gaza.

The “deliberate denial of energy access”, like electricity and fuel, “undermines fundamental human needs” in the enclave, the NRC said in a new report.

Israel has maintained a crippling aid blockade on Gaza, sealing vital border crossings, and preventing the entry of aid spanning from food, to medical supplies and much-needed fuel.

“In Gaza, energy is not about convenience – it’s about survival,” Benedicte Giaever, executive director of NORCAP, which is part of NRC, said.

“When families can’t cook, when hospitals go dark and when water pumps stop running, the consequences are immediate and devastating. The international community must prioritise energy in all humanitarian efforts,” she added.

NRC’s report noted that without power, healthcare facilities in Gaza have been adversely affected, with emergency surgeries having to be delayed, and ventilators, incubators and dialysis machines unable to function.

“I don’t agree with that assessment at all.” Responding to Al Jazeera’s James Bays, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte denied that the military alliance is acting hypocritically by not criticising the US for its actions in the Middle East.

The Norwegian Refugee Council says the ‘deliberate denial of energy access’ undermines human needs in Gaza.

The lack of reliable energy sources is a key threat to survival in war-torn Gaza, an NGO has warned.

The “deliberate denial of energy access”, like electricity and fuel, “undermines fundamental human needs” in the war-torn enclave, a report published on Monday by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) cautioned. The alert is just the latest regarding the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which is driven by Israel’s blockade amid its war against Hamas.

Israel halted the entry of food, water and fuel in March, putting the Palestinian territory’s population at risk of famine.

Electricity supply has also been limited. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimates that 2.1 million people in Gaza have no access to power.

“In Gaza, energy is not about convenience – it’s about survival,” Benedicte Giaever, executive director of NORCAP, which is part of NRC, said.

“When families can’t cook, when hospitals go dark and when water pumps stop running, the consequences are immediate and devastating. The international community must prioritise energy in all humanitarian efforts,” she added.

NRC’s report noted that without power, healthcare facilities in Gaza have been adversely impacted, with emergency surgeries having to be delayed, and ventilators, incubators and dialysis machines unable to function.

Lack of electricity has also impacted Gaza’s desalination facilities, leaving 70 percent of households without access to clean water and forcing households to burn plastic or debris to cook, NRC said.

The humanitarian organisation also highlighted how the lack of power has increased the risks of gender-based violence after dark.

“For too long, the people of Gaza have endured cycles of conflict, blockade, and deprivation. But the current crisis represents a new depth of despair, threatening their immediate survival and their long-term prospects for recovery and development,” NRC’s Secretary General Jan Egeland said, urging the international community to ensure the people in Gaza gain access to energy.

Amid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, hundreds of people have been killed by the Israeli military as they have sought food and other vital supplies from aid stations set up by the controversial Israel- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

In its latest daily update released on Monday, the Health Ministry in Gaza said the bodies of at least 39 people had been brought to hospitals over the previous 24 hours. At least 317 people were wounded, it added.

Since Israel eased its total blockade last month, more than 400 people are reported to have died trying to reach food distribution points.

The UN’s top humanitarian official in the occupied Palestinian territory issued a stark warning on Sunday over the deepening crisis.

“We see a chilling pattern of Israeli forces opening fire on crowds gathering to get food,” said Jonathan Whittall, who heads OCHA in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

“The attempt to survive is being met with a death sentence.”

Reform UK has announced it would give non-doms the chance to avoid some UK taxes by paying a £250,000 fee, with the proceeds going to people on the lowest incomes.

Non-domiciles (or non-doms) live in the UK but have a permanent home overseas for tax purposes.

Under Reform’s plan, non-doms would pay the fee for a new Britannia Card and in return not be taxed on wealth, income or capital gains earned abroad. They would also avoid the need to pay inheritance tax.

Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the measure amounted to a “tax cut for foreign billionaires” and Reform would have to either raise taxes or cut public services such as the NHS to compensate for the loss in revenue.

Reform UK says income from the measure would be transferred annually tax-free to the bank accounts of the lowest paid 10% of full-time workers.

The party estimates its policy would raise between £1.5bn to £2.5bn annually, equating to £600 – £1,000 per low-paid worker.

Speaking in central London, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said “tens of thousands” of people would be tempted to the UK by the offer of the card, which could be renewed every 10 years, with no additional cost.

“Many talented people are leaving and we want as many entrepreneurs, as many risk-takers, as many job creators, as many people paying lots of tax, as many people investing huge sums of money.”

Asked if the policy was an example of “fantasy economics”, he said the initial £250,000 payment would be “just the tip of the iceberg of what these people will pay if they come back” in stamp duty and VAT in the UK.

Questioned on whether an influx of wealthy people would push up property prices in London, he said it was a “good point” but argued there would not be an impact on the cost of affordable housing.

Speaking to the BBC’s World at One, Dan Neidle, who is founder of Tax Policy Associates and a Labour member, estimated the policy would cost £34bn in lost revenue over five years, pointing to figures from the government’s OBR spending watchdog.

He also warned that foreign, highly-skilled professionals unable to afford the £250,000 fee could, under Reform’s plans, have to pay full tax in the UK and their home country, meaning they would be discouraged from moving to the UK.

He added that the “very wealthy” were unlikely to believe the policy would be in place for the long term and could therefore be unwilling to pay the fee.

Last year, the Labour government announced it would be abolishing the tax status, which allows non-doms to only pay UK tax on money they earn in the country.

The so-called loophole meant wealthy individuals were able to legally save money by choosing a lower-tax country as their permanent home.

Earlier this year, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that, having listened to “concerns that have been raised by the non-dom community”, she would introduce a more generous transition phase to the policy.

There are reports she is considering watering down the policy further after claims it has triggered an exodus of wealthy people from the UK.

The government says its package of measures would raise £12.7bn over the next five years.

Under previous rules, non-doms paid an annual fee of £30,000 or £60,000 depending on how much time they had spent in the UK.

According to HMRC figures, 74,000 people claimed non-dom status in 2022-23.

Responding to the Reform UK policy, a Labour spokesperson said: “Nigel Farage can brand this whatever he wants – the reality is his first proper policy is a golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country.

“As ever with Reform, the devil is in the detail. This giveaway would reduce revenues raised from the rich that would have to be made up elsewhere – through tax hikes on working families or through Farage’s promise to charge them to use the NHS.”

Conservative shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: “The British public need a real plan for putting more money in their pockets – but what Reform are peddling is fantasy economics. Their promises are ruinously irresponsible.

“Only Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives believe in the fiscal responsibility our country needs.”

EXPLAINER

What do PSG, Real Madrid and Inter Miami need? Can Al Hilal and Sundowns still qualify? Al Jazeera explains.

All teams at the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 have played two games each, and at the end of matchday two, five clubs have already booked their spots in the tournament’s round of 16.

Famous clubs such as Bayern Munich and Manchester City are among those to clinch qualification, but the likes of European giants Real Madrid and Paris Saint-Germain still need a final push to seal a place in the knockouts.

Al Jazeera Sport explains which teams are in and which are out, while breaking down the scenarios under which some of the comparatively smaller clubs could squeeze through.

Which teams are in the Club World Cup round of 16?

With two wins out of two and six points in the bag, these five clubs can breathe easy:

• Botafogo
• Bayern Munich
• Flamengo
• Manchester City
• Juventus

Which teams have been knocked out of the Club World Cup?

After losing their first two games, the journey has ended for seven clubs:

• Auckland City
• Los Angeles FC
• Urawa Red Diamonds
• Ulsan HD
• Wydad AC
• Al Ain
• Pachuca

What are the tie-breaker rules being used in the Club World Cup?

In case of a tie on points, the teams progressing to the knockouts will be determined on a set of tie-breakers. Should the first step result in another tie, the next tie-breaker will be employed until a winner is decided. These steps are:

• Head-to-head winner between the tied teams
• Head-to-head goal difference between the tied teams
• Head-to-head goals scored between the tied teams
• Disciplinary points (yellow and red cards)
• Drawing of lots

What results do Real Madrid, Inter Milan, PSG, Inter Miami and Chelsea need to progress?

While the Lionel Messi-led side and the four European giants remain favourites to enter the second round of the competition, the following clubs still have some work left to do before they can progress.

• Real Madrid: With four points from their first two games – like RB Salzburg – Real sit on top of Group H by edging Salzburg on goal difference. A win against the Austrian team in their final group game will send the Spanish giants through. A draw and a win for Al Hilal over Pachuca will leave all three teams on five points apiece, bringing the tie-break rules into play to determine the top two sides.
• PSG: The European champions have won one and lost one game so far, leaving them with three points and in desperate need of a win in their final Group B game against Seattle Sounders. Six points will seal their spot alongside Botafogo.
• Inter Miami: The Miami team made a lukewarm start to the tournament, before beating FC Porto to have a total of four points after two games. They face Group A leaders Palmeiras for a bid to seal their place, which they can do by avoiding a loss.
• Chelsea: The English side find themselves in a spot of bother with only three points after a win and a loss. They need to avoid losing to their tough Group D opponents, ES Tunis, who also have the same points, to advance. A draw will be enough for Chelsea on the basis of their better goal difference.
• Inter Milan: The UEFA Champions League runners up were held by Mexican opponents Monterrey in their first game but beat a resilient Urawa Reds side to bag their first win in Group E. Inter face group toppers (on goal difference) River Plate in their last game, where a win would make either side the group leaders, but a draw could bring in a tie-break scenario should Monterrey thrash Urawa in their final game.

Can Al Hilal, Mamelodi Sundowns, Monterrey and ES Tunis still qualify for the knockouts?

Yes, all four clubs have at least two points from their first two games, giving them a promising shot at qualification.

Al Hilal and Monterrey also have two points from their two drawn games. The Saudi club face the ousted Mexican side Pachuca for a chance to score a big win and then hope that their superior goal difference can see them through, irrespective of the result in the other Group H game. Monterrey are in the same boat and will have the same requirements from their game against Urawa.

The Sundowns have lit up the Club World Cup with their skills and colourful celebrations, but it will not be fun and games when they play Brazil’s Fluminense for a chance to qualify. A win, resulting in six points, will be enough for the South African club, but a draw, leading to four points, might kick them out as German giants Borussia Dortmund, on four points, are highly unlikely to lose against Ulsan in their last Group F match.

ES Tunis are in a straight winner-goes-through shootout with Chelsea, as a draw will not be enough for the Tunisian club, given their poorer goal difference.

Which other teams still have a chance to enter the round of 16?

• Fluminense
• Borussia Dortmund
• Atletico Madrid
• River Plate
• FC Porto
• Benfica
• Al Ahly
• Palmeiras
• Boca Juniors
• RB Salzburg
• Seattle Sounders

President Gustavo Petro says freeing the seized soldiers ‘is imperative’.

The Colombian army says more than 50 soldiers have been seized by civilians in a southwest mountainous area.

A platoon of soldiers was the first to be seized on Saturday during an operation in El Tambo, a municipality that is part of an area known as the Micay Canyon, a key zone for cocaine production and one of the most tense in the country’s ongoing security crisis.

On Sunday, another group of soldiers was surrounded by at least 200 residents as they headed towards the town of El Plateado, in the same region.

“As a result of both events [both kidnappings], a total of four noncommissioned officers and 53 professional soldiers remain deprived of their liberty,” the army said on Sunday.

General Federico Alberto Mejia, who leads military operations in the southwest, added in a video that it was a “kidnapping” by rebels who had “infiltrated” the community.

The Colombian army has maintained that the civilians in the region receive orders from the Central General Staff (EMC), the main dissident group of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) that refused to be part of a peace deal with the government in 2016.

President Gustavo Petro, who has pledged to bring peace to the country, said on social media that freeing the soldiers “is imperative”.

The left-wing leader has been trying for months to ensure that the country’s armed forces gain access to Micay Canyon.

But his government has struggled to contain violence in urban and rural areas as several rebel groups try to take over territory abandoned by the FARC after the peace deal.

This has made many Colombians fearful of a return to the bloody violence of the 1980s and 90s, when cartel attacks and political assassinations were frequent.

Peace talks between the FARC-EMC faction and the government broke down last year after a series of attacks on Indigenous communities.

Getty Images

Who is eligible for Mounjaro from GPs right now?

Will I get Mounjaro if I meet the criteria?

Where else is Mounjaro available?

When can I get Mounjaro if I don’t fit the criteria right now?

What about the rest of the UK?

Missile and drone strikes target residential areas in numerous districts across Kyiv.

A “massive” Russian drone and missile attack has killed at least six people in Ukraine’s capital and the surrounding region, according to Ukrainian officials.

Officials said the strikes on Monday morning targeted residential areas in numerous districts across Kyiv. The assault on the city, the second huge overnight blitz in a week, suggests Russia is eager to raise the pressure as global attention is dominated by the United States’s decision to join Israel’s escalating air campaign against Iran.

“Another massive attack on the capital. Possibly, several waves of enemy drones,” Tymur Tkachenko, head of Kyiv’s military administration, said in a statement.

“The Russians’ style is unchanged – to hit where there may be people,” Tkachenko said on Telegram. “Residential buildings, exits from shelters – this is the Russian style.

As well as residential buildings, hospitals, sports infrastructure, and the entrance of a metro station being used as a bomb shelter were hit during the large-scale attack, emergency services said.

The attack caused damage in six of Kyiv’s 10 districts and wounded at least 10 people, Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said on Telegram.

“At least four people were killed in Kyiv’s Shevchenkivskyi district, where the entire entrance of a residential high-rise building was destroyed,” Klymenko said.

“There are still people under the rubble,” he added.

Meanwhile, a Russian short-range drone attack in the Chernihiv region late on Sunday killed two people and wounded 10 others, including three children, according to authorities.

Another person was killed and eight were wounded overnight in the city of Bila Tserkva, some 85km (53 miles) southwest of Kyiv.

Sabotage

Russia has not commented on the strikes. Both sides deny targeting civilians in the war that Russia launched in February 2022, but thousands of civilians have been killed in the conflict, the vast majority of them Ukrainian.

Russia’s deadliest attack on Kyiv came last week as it unleashed hundreds of drones, killing 28 people and injuring more than 150, with Ukrainian officials saying nearly 30 sites were hit in waves of attacks.

Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Oleksandr Syrskii, amid the rise in attacks on the capital, has pledged to intensify strikes on Russia.

“We will not just sit in defence. Because this brings nothing and eventually leads to the fact that we still retreat, lose people and territories,” he said, according to the AFP news agency.

To that end, Ukraine “will increase the scale and depth” of its attacks on Russian military targets, he added.

Russian forces launched at least 47 drones against Ukraine and fired three missiles overnight on Sunday, the Ukrainian air force said.

Kyiv has accused Moscow of deliberately sabotaging efforts towards agreeing a peace deal, which has been pushed by US President Donald Trump, to prolong its full-scale offensive on the country and to seize more territory.

The Oklahoma City Thunder have capped an extraordinary season by defeating the Indiana Pacers 103-91 in Game 7 of the NBA Finals to win the franchise’s first title since relocating from Seattle in 2008.

The league’s Most Valuable Player (MVP), Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, led the scoring in front of a raucous home crowd at Oklahoma City’s Paycom Center, with 29 points and 12 assists in the deciding game on Sunday.

He was also crowned the best player of the Finals, marking the first time since Shaquille O’Neal in 2002 that the same player had won the scoring title, regular season and Finals MVP honours.

The Pacers suffered a huge blow early on when they lost their star point guard,  Tyrese Haliburton, midway through the first quarter with an Achilles injury and saw their title hopes dashed by a stifling Oklahoma City defence in the second half.

“It doesn’t feel real,” Gilgeous-Alexander said. “So many hours, so many moments, so many emotions, so many nights of disbelief, so many nights of belief.

“This group works hard. This group put in the hours, and we deserve this,” he added.

The championship capped an extraordinary run for the Thunder, who ended the regular season with a 68-14 record, good for the fifth-most wins in a single NBA season.

The Finals between two small-market teams were light on star power but delivered on thrills, as the surprise Eastern Conference champions Pacers pushed the best team in the league to the winner-take-all finale.

The Pacers got off on the right track as Haliburton drained his third three-pointer five minutes into the game, but the night took a terrible turn for Indiana when he slipped and fell two minutes later.

The two-time All Star was in tears as his team’s medical staff rushed to his side, and a hush fell over the building packed with Oklahoma City fans.

Haliburton was helped to the locker room but did not return, and while there was no official update from the team, a TV broadcast reported he had suffered an Achilles injury.

The resilient Pacers kept the game tight through a physical second quarter, putting up a terrific defensive effort to end the half up by one.

However, the Thunder soon took control with Gilgeous-Alexander, who went 0-5 behind the arc in the first half, lighting the fuse with a 25-foot three-point jump shot four minutes into the third quarter.

The Pacers were masters of the late comeback in the postseason, but without Haliburton, they were unable to claw back the deficit, with the Thunder opening the fourth quarter with a 9-0 run.

Youthful champions’ struggle

The Thunder’s youth was evident in their postgame celebration.

“No one knew how to open them,” Thunder centre Isaiah Hartenstein said of the post-game celebratory champagne bottles.

They learned soon enough, thanks to 31-year-old Alex Caruso, both the oldest player on the roster and the only player on the team who had previously won an NBA title.

“AC [Caruso] did a great job of giving us a tutorial,” Hartenstein said.

The Thunder youth came through with inconsistency at times.

“The whole run, I’ve tried to help the guys just be who we are, and that’s all we needed is to be who we are,” Thunder coach Mark Daigneault said.

The Pacers remain without an NBA title.

It could’ve been worse for the Pacers if not for point guard TJ McConnell, who scored 12 points in the third, hitting six of Indiana’s eight field goals in the frame.

Bennedict Mathurin led the Pacers for the game with 24 points off the bench. Pascal Siakam and McConnell added 16 each.

The Thunder became the first team to score 100 or more points in an NBA Finals Game 7 since 1988, when the Los Angeles Lakers beat the Detroit Pistons 108-105.

Caruso, who played on the Los Angeles Lakers’ 2020 title team, said he hoped his postgame tutorial would pay off again down the road.

“We’ll get some rest, rest, try to do it again next year,” Caruso said. “We’ll be better [at it] next year.”

EXPLAINER

Iran remains the US’s adversary in the Middle East since the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

United States-Iran tensions have surged to the highest point in decades after President Donald Trump on Sunday ordered direct strikes that he said “obliterated” key nuclear facilities across the Middle Eastern country.

Iran remains the biggest adversary of the US in the region since the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini toppled pro-Western Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Since then, the two nations have sparred over a multitude of issues, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Iran’s backing of proxies in the region, and US political interference.

Israel, which has long considered Iran a threat, launched unprecedented strikes across Iran last week after accusing the country of developing nuclear weapons. Israeli claims have not been backed by any credible proof, but Trump dragged the US into the war following the Israeli strikes.

On Sunday, the US directly hit Iran in what the Trump administration called a highly sophisticated covert attack that involved more than 125 US aircraft and 75 precision bombs. Washington said it “devastated” Iran’s nuclear sites, but Tehran has warned it will retaliate.

Here’s a timeline of US-Iran relations since 1953:

• (1953) US-backed coup and reinstallation of the shah: Tensions initially began brewing over the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh’s efforts to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). The British colonial power controlled the majority stake in the joint-venture company since oil was discovered in the early 1900s. Mosaddegh’s moves to nationalise the company after his 1951 election angered the British. The US’s Central Intelligence Agency supported the United Kingdom in engineering a coup and backing once-deposed monarch, Pahlavi, back into power as shah.
• (1957) Atoms for Peace: The shah’s ambitions for a nuclear-powered Iran gained support from the US and other Western allies. Both countries signed a nuclear agreement for the civilian use of nuclear power as part of then-US President Dwight D Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace programme. A decade later, the US provided Iran with a nuclear reactor and uranium to fuel it. The nuclear collaboration forms the basis for the current nuclear question.
• (1979) Islamic revolution: While relations between Tehran and Washington flourished, Iranians groaned under the dictatorship of the shah and resisted the perceived overreach of Western influence on their business. Revolutionary protests began rocking the country in late 1978 and forced the shah to flee in January 1979. Exiled Islamic scholar Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to rule the new Islamic republic.
• (1980) US cuts diplomatic ties: Following the US’s move to admit the shah for cancer treatment after his exile, Iranian students broke into the US embassy in Tehran and kidnapped 52 Americans for 444 days. Washington cut off diplomatic ties and imposed sanctions on the country. The shah died in exile.
• (1980-88) US backs Iraqi invasion: Following Iraq’s invasion of Iran under Saddam Hussein, who was eager to push back against Khomeini’s ideology, the US sided with Iraq, deepening tensions between the two nations. The war lasted till 1988 and saw thousands die on both sides. Iraq also used chemical weapons on Iran.
• (1984) Sponsor of terror designation: President Ronald Reagan officially designated Iran as a “state sponsor of terror” after a series of attacks in Lebanon, where the US had been drawn in after Israel invaded the country. In one attack on a military base in Beirut, 241 US service members were killed. The US blamed Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia movement backed by Iran. Later, though, Reagan worked with Iran behind the scenes to free American hostages held by Hezbollah. When it came to light, the Iran-Contra affair, as it was termed, was a huge scandal for Reagan.
• (1988) Iran Air flight shot down: Amid war tensions and even direct attacks on each other’s military warships in the Gulf, a US naval ship breached Iranian waters and fired at the civilian Iran Air flight (IR655) headed to Dubai on July 8. All 290 people on board were killed. The US, which claimed it was a mistake, did not formally apologise or claim responsibility but paid families $61.8m as compensation.
• (1995) Tighter sanctions: Between 1995 and 1996, the US imposed more sanctions. Then, President Bill Clinton’s executive orders banned US companies from dealing with Iran, while Congress passed a law penalising foreign entities investing in the country’s energy sector or selling Iran advanced weapons. The US cited nuclear advancement and support of groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• (2002) 9/11 aftermath: Following the 9/11 attacks on the US, President George W Bush, in a State of the Union address, said Iran was part of an “Axis of Evil” alongside Iraq and North Korea. At the time, Iran had been parlaying with the US behind the scenes to target their mutual foes – the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. The cooperation was soured, and by the end of 2022, international observers noted highly enriched uranium in Iran, inviting more sanctions.
• (2013) Iran nuclear deal: Between 2013 and 2015, US President Barack Obama began high-level talks with Iran. In 2015, Tehran agreed to the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that would limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for an easing of sanctions. China, Russia, France, Germany, the UK and the European Union were also party to the deal that capped Iran’s enrichment at 3.67 percent.
• (2018) Trump withdraws from the nuclear deal: Under Trump’s first term, the US unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018 and slapped back sanctions against Iran. Trump and Israel had been critical of the deal. Iran also called off its commitments and began producing enriched uranium beyond the limits the deal had imposed.
• (2020) IRGC leader assassinated: During Trump’s first term, the US killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in Baghdad in a drone strike. A year earlier, the administration had named the Quds Force a “terrorist” organisation. Iran responded with strikes on US assets in Iraq.
• (2025) Letter to Tehran: In March, Trump shot off a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing new negotiations on a nuclear deal with a deadline of 60 days. But Khamenei rejected the offer, saying the US is not seeking negotiations with Iran but rather imposing demands on it. Talks started unofficially in Oman and Italy, with Muscat acting as the mediator. Trump claimed his team was “very close” to a deal after several rounds of talks and warned Israel against strikes. Tehran, too, expressed optimism but insisted on the right to enrich uranium – a sticking point in the talks. Israel launched strikes across Iran a day before the sixth round of the Iran-US talks.
• (2025) US strikes: The US bombed three key nuclear facilities in Iran, citing security concerns and the defence of Israel.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called on China to prevent Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important shipping routes.

His comments came after Iran’s state-run Press TV reported that parliament had approved a plan to close the Strait but added that the final decision lies with the Supreme National Security Council.

Any disruption to the supply of oil would have profound consequences for the economy. China in particular is the world’s largest buyer of Iranian oil and has a close relationship with Tehran.

Oil prices surged following the US attack on Iranian nuclear sites, with the price of the benchmark Brent crude reaching its highest level in five months.

“I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them (Iran) about that, because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil,” Marco Rubio had said in an interview with Fox News on Sunday.

“If they [close the Straits]… it will be economic suicide for them. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries’ economies a lot worse than ours.”

Around 20% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, with major oil and gas producers in the Middle East using the waterway to transport energy from the region.

Any attempt to disrupt operations in the Strait could could send global oil prices skyrocketing.

They jumped to their highest since January, with the price of Brent crude reaching $78.89 a barrel as of 23:22 GMT Sunday.

“The US is now positioned with an overwhelming defence posture in the region to be prepared for any Iran counter attacks. But the risk for oil prices is the situation could escalate severely further,” said Saul Kavonic, Head of Energy Research at MST Financial.

The cost of crude oil affects everything from how much it costs to fill up your car to the price of food at the supermarket.

China in particular buys more oil from Iran than any other nation – with its oil imports from Iran surpassing 1.8 million barrels per day last month, according to data by ship tracking firm Vortexa.

Other major Asian economies including India, Japan and South Korea also rely heavily on crude oil that passes through the Strait.

Energy analyst Vandana Hari has said Iran has “little to gain and too much to lose” from closing the Strait.

“Iran risks turning its oil and gas producing neighbours in the Gulf into enemies and invoking the ire of its key market China by disrupting traffic in the Strait”, Hari told BBC News.

The US joined the conflict between Iran and Israel over the weekend, with President Donald Trump saying Washington had “obliterated” Tehran’s key nuclear sites.

However, it’s not clear how much damage the strikes inflicted, with the UN’s nuclear watchdog saying it was unable to assess the damage at the heavily fortified Fordo underground nuclear site. Iran has said there was only minor damage to Fordo.

Trump also warned Iran that they would face “far worse” future attacks if they did not abandon their nuclear programme.

On Monday, Beijing said the US strikes had damaged Washington’s credibility and called for an immediate ceasefire.

China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong said all parties should restrain “the impulse of force… and adding fuel to the fire”, according to a state-run CCTV report.

In an editorial, Beijing’s state newspaper Global Times also said US involvement in Iran “had further complicated and destabilised the Middle East situation” and that it was pushing the conflict to an “uncontrollable state”.

As United States President Donald Trump addressed the world on the strikes launched by his country’s military against three key Iranian nuclear sites in the early hours on Sunday, he thanked several people and institutions.

The US military, fighter pilots who dropped the bombs, and a general were among those on his list. So was one individual who is not American, and with whom Trump has had a topsy-turvy relationship: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump also said Netanyahu and he had worked like “perhaps no team has ever worked before”. Those laudatory comments represent a stark contrast from the far more crude language that Trump used for the Israeli leader just four years ago, and their public tension over Iran less than a month ago.

We track Trump’s often-love and sometimes-hate relationship with Netanyahu:

What did Trump say about Netanyahu?

In his televised address on Sunday, during the early morning hours in the Middle East, Trump thanked and congratulated Netanyahu. “I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu,” he said, referring to a name the Israeli PM is widely known by.

“We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel,” Trump said, referring to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done,” Trump said, adding praise for the US forces.

Trump warned Iran to accept what he described as “peace” but what effectively amounts to the surrender of its nuclear programme, on US terms.

“If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier,” he said. Meanwhile, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear arsenal, though it has never officially acknowledged it.

The US strikes follow nine days of Israeli missile attacks against Iran, including on its nuclear facilities. Israel did not have the bombs needed to damage or destroy Iran’s most secretive nuclear site in Fordow, buried deep inside a mountain.  The US, using its bunker-buster bombs, hit Fordow as well as the facilities in Natanz and Isfahan on Sunday.

Trump’s decision to align himself with Netanyahu in bringing the US into the war with Iran has split his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) support base.

What did Netanyahu say about Trump?

After Trump announced the strikes and appreciated the Israeli leader, Netanyahu responded with warmer words than the ones the US president had used for him.

“President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,” Netanyahu said in a recorded video statement.

He further said, “In tonight’s action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, America has been truly unsurpassed. It has done what no other country on Earth could do.”

“History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime the world’s most dangerous weapons,” said Netanyahu.

The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has publicly said it does not believe that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, an assessment shared by US intelligence agencies, which also drew the same conclusion earlier this year.

However, Trump has in recent days said his hand-picked spy chief, Tulsi Gabbard, and the intelligence community’s assessment were “wrong”.

Trump’s “leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace”, Netanyahu said in this statement.

“President Trump and I often say: ‘Peace through strength’. First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, Donald Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength,” concluded Netanyahu.

How were their ties during Trump’s first term?

Netanyahu enjoyed a close relationship with Trump during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021.

Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, a long-sought symbolic victory for Netanyahu that strengthened his image domestically. Trump appointed an ambassador who was ideologically aligned with Israel’s settler movement, David Friedman, in May 2017.

In March 2019, the US president also recognised Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, becoming the only world leader to back Israel’s annexation of the region that is recognised internationally as a part of Syria.

In September 2020, Trump hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, which led to normalisation of relations between Israel and four Arab states – Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan.

Trump formally withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal — in May 2018, through a presidential proclamation that reinstated US sanctions against Iran.

This marked a major shift from the previous US policy of implementing the JCPOA in January 2016 to curb Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump declared the deal “defective at its core”, claiming it offered insufficient assurances and failed to address Iran’s missile programme and regional activities.

Why did Trump sour on Netanyahu?

In a December 2021 Axios interview with Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, Trump revealed that his relationship with Netanyahu deteriorated after the Israeli PM publicly congratulated incoming President Joe Biden on his 2020 election victory — a loss that Trump has refused to accept.

“The first person that congratulated [Biden] was Bibi Netanyahu, the man that I did more for than any other person I dealt with. Bibi could have stayed quiet. He has made a terrible mistake,” Trump said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. “And not only did he congratulate him, he did it on tape.”

“F*** him,” Trump said, expressing his anger.

How have their ties been since?

While the incoming Trump administration initially claimed to broker a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, with some observers noting that he may rein in the Israeli military campaign, it soon rallied behind Netanyahu’s continuing genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people.

In a joint news conference in February this year, Trump wildly proposed that the US should “take over” the Gaza Strip, redevelop it, and relocate Palestinians⁠ — a plan that Netanyahu publicly endorsed as “nothing wrong”.

Netanyahu also said he was “committed to US President Trump’s plan for the creation of a different Gaza”. Later that month, the US approved $2.5bn worth of arms sales to Israel, including bombs and drones.

In March, Israel resumed major air attacks in Gaza after negotiations over the release of captives collapsed. The White House confirmed that Israel had consulted Trump before the attacks.

On Iran, meanwhile, Trump’s position has seesawed from alignment with Netanyahu to his own distinct positions.

April 12-June 13, 2025: The US led back-channel nuclear negotiations with Iran, mediated by Oman.

May: Trump stated during his Gulf tour that the US was in “very serious negotiations” with Iran and “getting very close” to a nuclear deal, signalling openness to diplomacy. On May 28, Trump said he told Netanyahu to hold off on any strike against Iran to give his administration more time to push for a new nuclear deal. He told reporters at the White House that he relayed to Netanyahu a strike “would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution”.

June 11-12: The IAEA said Iran had not been transparent enough in its nuclear programme, and that elements of its approach were in violation of the country’s safeguards agreement with the United Nations nuclear watchdog. The US began evacuating its regional embassies. Tensions surged as Trump stated that diplomacy was stalling and hinted at serious consequences if no deal was reached.

June 13: Israel launched massive air strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing key nuclear scientists, scholars, and top military commanders.

In the initial US reaction to Israeli attacks on Iran, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, called the strikes “unilateral” and said Washington was “not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region”.

The US-Iran talks over a nuclear deal were suspended. Trump admitted that he was aware of Israel’s plans to attack Iran.

June 19: Trump, after nearly a week of stalled talks and Israeli attacks, signalled support for Israel’s military campaign, though keeping a diplomatic track open for talks with Tehran.

June 20: The US president set a two-week ultimatum for Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal.

June 21: Trump ordered US air strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities, coordinating with Israel. He declared them “completely obliterated”.

The United States has struck Iranian soil, hitting three of the country’s nuclear facilities.

US President Donald Trump is threatening more strikes if peace is not achieved.

But Iran has hit back, striking central and northern Israel.

So is this a major escalation in the conflict between Iran and Israel?

Is there a real danger of nuclear fallout?

How likely is Iran to strike US bases?

And is the Middle East moving closer to a regional war?

Presenter: Imran Khan

Guests:

Zohreh Kharazmi – Assistant professor in the Faculty of World Studies at the University of Tehran

Tariq Rauf – Former head of the Verification and Security Policy Coordination Office at the International Atomic Energy Agency

Matthew Bryza – Former US National Security Council official at the White House and diplomat

The blast in Dweil’a on the outskirts of Syria’s capital was carried out as people were praying inside the Mar Elias Church.

A suicide bomber in Syria has carried out an attack inside a church filled with people, killing at least 20 people and wounding dozens more, according to the Syria’s Ministry of Health and security officials.

The explosion in Dweil’a on the outskirts of Damascus took place as people were praying during mass inside the Mar Elias Church on Sunday.

No group immediately claimed responsibility, but the Syrian Interior Ministry said a fighter from the ISIL (ISIS) group entered the church and fired at the people there before detonating himself with an explosives vest, echoing some witness testimonies.

The death toll reported was a preliminary one. “Rescue teams from the Syria Civil Defence continue to recover bodies from the scene,” a statement on Telegram said on Sunday.

Official state agency SANA, citing the Health Ministry, said that at least 50 others were wounded.

Some local media reported that children were among the casualties.

The attack was the first of its kind in Syria in years, and comes as the fledgling interim government led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa is trying to win the support of minorities.

As al-Sharaa struggles to exert authority across Syria, there have been concerns about the presence of sleeper cells of groups like ISIL (ISIS) in the country recovering from nearly 14 years of devastating civil war that killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.

Syria has made significant inroads back into the international fold since al-Sharaa became president in January 2025, with both the United States and the European Union lifting sanctions from the era of ousted President Bashar al-Assad.

‘He was shooting at the church’

A witness who identified himself as Rawad told The Associated Press that he saw the attacker, who was accompanied by two others who fled as he was driving near the church.

“He was shooting at the church … he then went inside the church and blew himself up,” he said.

Security forces and first responders rushed to the scene.

Panicked survivors wailed, as one woman fell to her knees and burst into tears.

Syrian Information Minister Hamza al-Mostafa condemned the blast, calling it a “terrorist” attack.

“This cowardly act goes against the civic values that bring us together,” he said in a post on X.

“We will not back down from our commitment to equal citizenship … and we also affirm the state’s pledge to exert all its efforts to combat criminal organisations and to protect society from all attacks threatening its safety.”

The United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Geir O. Pedersen condemned “in the strongest possible terms the terrorist attack at St. Elias Church” and expressed “his outrage at this heinous crime.” His statement also noted “that the Syrian interim authorities have attributed this attack to ISIL and (he) calls for a full investigation and action by the authorities.”

Turkiye’s foreign ministry said the “treacherous” attack aimed to disrupt efforts to achieve stability and security in Syria.

France’s foreign ministry also condemned the “despicable” attack. France “expresses its full solidarity with the Syrian people, who hope that Syria will find its way back to peace,” the ministry said in a statement.

Photos circulated by the Syria Civil Defence showed the church’s interior area in ruins, with pews covered in debris and blood.

James Felgate / BBC

‘My heart sank’

‘Risk of exploitation’

The administration of former US President, Joe Biden, knowingly allowed Israel’s genocide in Gaza to continue long after it had lost any clear military objective, with senior officials in Washington privately admitting it amounted to “killing and destroying for the sake of killing and destroying”. This damning assessment, along with revelations of political manipulation, diplomatic cover-ups and sabotaged peace efforts, comes from a bombshell investigation aired by Israel’s Channel 13. Details of the investigation have been translated by Drop Site News and shared on X.

The Biden administration allowed Israel unprecedented leeway to carry out its military offensive, despite the enormous death and devastation it inflicted on Gaza. Former Israeli ambassador, Michael Herzog, made a startling admission about Biden’s support: “God did the State of Israel a favour that Biden was the president during this period. We fought [in Gaza] for over a year and the administration never came to us and said, ‘ceasefire now.’ It never did. And that’s not to be taken for granted.” His remarks encapsulated a broader sentiment that the White House gave Benjamin Netanyahu all the political space he needed to execute the military offensive, which has claimed the lives of more than 52,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children.

READ: ICC judges order prosecutor to keep arrest warrant requests confidential in Gaza probes

The investigation, which included interviews with nine current and former US officials, reveals a deeply troubling portrait of US complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Former national security aide, Ilan Goldenberg, stated that the war amounted to “killing and destroying for the sake of killing and destroying”, with no viable political alternative ever established. Despite the White House’s public messaging about restraining Israel, the internal consensus appeared to be that the administration had no intention of exerting real pressure on the Occupation state.

The Biden administration also shielded Israel from allegations of war crimes, prompting a major backlash from staffers in the State Department. Lawyer Stacy Gilbert, for example, resigned in protest after being excluded from a key report that falsely claimed Israel had not violated US arms laws. Gilbert described the report as “shocking in its mendacity”, pointing out that aid obstruction and settler attacks were well documented, yet ignored. Meanwhile, Washington continued to certify Israeli compliance with US law, ensuring the uninterrupted flow of weapons.

The investigation also revealed that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, deliberately sabotaged hostage negotiations in order to prevent a ceasefire. US officials confirmed that Netanyahu tanked talks out of fear that a deal would compel him to halt the war.

Despite public backlash, Biden’s private approach remained deferential. Even after reportedly telling Netanyahu he was “full of shit” and hanging up mid-call, Biden ultimately maintained support. After briefly halting a shipment of 2,000-lb bombs due to concerns about their use in densely populated areas of Gaza, Netanyahu publicly accused Washington of broader arms delays. Biden, rather than escalating pressure, resumed the shipment process shortly thereafter.

The Channel 13 exposé further confirms that Biden’s reluctance to push Israel was deeply tied to a failed diplomatic initiative with Saudi Arabia. A landmark normalisation deal was in sight, but it required Israeli recognition of Palestinian statehood. These were flatly rejected by Netanyahu’s far-right coalition. Former US ambassador, Jack Lew, said he found Israel’s refusal “shocking”, while Amos Hochstein expressed disbelief that such a strategic opportunity was squandered. Sources confirmed that Netanyahu deliberately stalled negotiations in hopes that President Trump would return to office and claim the diplomatic win for himself.

These revelations lend significant weight to long-standing accusations that the Biden administration has not only provided diplomatic cover for Israel’s propaganda by repeating lies, but also actively enabled what many view as a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Critics note that Biden himself amplified false Israeli claims, such as the widely discredited allegations of Hamas beheading babies, rhetoric that helped to dehumanise a population in order to carry out genocide.

OPINION: Advisory opinions will not stop genocide

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