Category World News

Kampala, Uganda – It was June 5 when Ugandan soldiers arrived in Kasenyi, a town on the shores of Lake Albert in Ituri province in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Uganda’s army chief, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, posted a video on X showing what he said were residents “enthusiastically” welcoming the soldiers, as Chris Magezi, an aide to Kainerugaba and at the time acting spokesperson for Uganda’s People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) said the army had “occupied” it together with another Congolese town, Tchomia.

When Kampala first deployed troops to eastern DRC in November 2021, they were in pursuit of the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a rebel group with Ugandan roots whose strongholds were located in Beni territory, in DRC’s North Kivu province. The group initially fought against the Ugandan government in pursuit of regime change, but from the 2010s onwards, it began aligning itself with the Islamic State Central Africa Province. In Uganda, the government accused the ADF of being behind several high-profile assassinations, while both countries blamed it for massacring civilians.

In 2021, during that first joint military operation between the Ugandan and Congolese armies, towns like Kasenyi remained unaffected.

But today, the Ugandan army’s footprint has expanded well beyond its original mission and into Ituri, by its own admission. This is despite the fact that the ADF, which has since dispersed and relocated far from its traditional bases, is not active in Kasenyi or other areas where the military has recently been operating, observers note.

In a statement in February, General Kainerugaba declared that Uganda would secure the entire border it shares with DRC: “That is our sphere of influence. Nothing will happen there without our permission,” he said on X.

On social media, Kainerugaba has frequently inserted himself into conversations about internal conflicts and the regional dynamics of the Congolese crisis.

He has openly expressed support for the M23 rebel group that has made rapid advancements in eastern DRC this year, seizing control of the capital cities of both North and South Kivu provinces.

M23 is reportedly backed by Rwanda and Uganda, according to various United Nations reports, though both countries have denied these allegations.

Economic interests

The expansion of the Ugandan army’s area of operation reflects Kampala’s shifting priorities in eastern DRC, according to army spokesperson Felix Kulayigye. He said the army is protecting Congolese communities as well as Uganda’s economic interests in the neighbouring country.

“Who is consuming Uganda’s products? Can commerce take place where there is instability? If we have commercial interests in eastern DRC, are those protectable or not?” Kulayigye told Al Jazeera.

From the start, Uganda’s military presence in DRC has carried an economic subtext.

According to a 2023 report by Deutsche Welle, as part of the agreement with the Kinshasa government to combat the ADF, Uganda was granted permission to build tarmac roads connecting key towns in DRC – routes designed to boost the movement of goods and deepen Uganda’s trade footprint in the region.

Although the text of the agreement was not released to the public, Ugandan soldiers, military equipment and road construction equipment entered all entered DRC in November 2021.

Solomon Asiimwe, an international relations lecturer at Nkumba University in Kampala, says although Uganda’s pursuit of the ADF may have appeared to be security-driven, the overriding factor was economic, though this was “hidden under the carpet”.

While some Congolese may be angered by Uganda’s expanded deployment, he suggests they should also consider the benefit of a steady supply of goods from Uganda. “Even Congolese have interests in supplying minerals to Uganda; they benefit from infrastructure and peace,” he said.

Eastern DRC’s market has become a battleground of its own. A recent analysis by The East African valued regional exports to the DRC at $2.9bn over nearly three years, with Uganda commanding a 68 percent share. Kenyan financial institutions have also staked their claim, entering DRC through bank acquisitions and the market was highly profitable – until M23’s advance this year halted their expansion.

But this trade has a dark side. Over the years, analysts and UN reports have accused both Uganda and Rwanda of acting as conduits for smuggled Congolese minerals and agricultural products such as cocoa and coffee. The International Court of Justice in 2022 ordered Uganda to pay the DRC $325m in reparations for the illegal exploitation of natural resources during its military presence in eastern DRC between 1998 and 2003; Kampala has paid several instalments since.

Analysts argue that mineral exploitation is visible in export data of these countries: for instance, Uganda’s gold exports reached $3bn in 2024, despite the country lacking any significant large-scale gold deposits.

‘Violation of Congolese sovereignty’

Ugandan army spokesperson Kulayigye said his country’s expanded deployment in Ituri was requested by Congolese authorities seeking help in fighting other armed groups destabilising the province.

“We had an additional mission at the request of Congolese authorities to deal with negative elements within Ituri,” he said.

Al Jazeera reached out to Congolese government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya to respond to this claim, but he did not reply to our questions at the time of publication.

Meanwhile, Congolese experts were sceptical, questioning both the legality and legitimacy of Uganda’s expanded mission.

“Uganda doesn’t have an agreement with the Congolese army to be in some parts of Ituri,” said Reagan Miviri, a conflict researcher at Ebuteli, a Kinshasa-based think tank. “They entered Congolese soil without permission. This is a violation of Congolese sovereignty.”

According to Miviri, Kinshasa has been silent on Uganda’s expanded operation, not because of approval but because it doesn’t want to have to confront both Uganda and Rwanda at the same time.

But he admits that in many areas where Uganda has deployed, it has more presence than the Congolese army.

Kambale Musavuli, a Congolese political analyst, calls Uganda’s growing military presence an occupation – one that “should alarm every Congolese and African who believes in sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

In response to criticism from analysts, Kulayigye said he was “disappointed by intellectuals” who sit in comfort talking about nothing, while on the ground, “people are dying at the hands of militias”.

Reminders of Congo wars

For Congolese observers, Uganda’s behaviour follows a historical script. From 1996 to 2003, Uganda and Rwanda intervened heavily in DRC, initially backing the rebel group that overthrew longtime dictator Mobutu Sese Seko and installed Laurent Kabila – only to later turn against him. Both countries subsequently supported various rebel factions attempting to oust Kabila.

Though international pressure forced Uganda and Rwanda to formally withdraw at the beginning of the century, both nations maintained ties to rebel groups, including M23, which was born out of the unresolved issues of the 1990s Congo wars.

In January and February this year, M23 captured key cities including Goma and Bukavu in eastern DRC, which they still hold. The UN accused Rwanda of deploying up to 4,000 Rwandan soldiers in the DRC, which helped rebels capture the cities, while Uganda has been accused of allowing M23 to get supplies and recruits through its territory.

“It’s a continuation of a pattern we have seen for decades, where neighbouring countries exploit instability in eastern Congo to pursue military and economic interests under the guise of security operations,” said Musavuli.

In the aftermath of the Congo wars, several reports emerged, including from the UN, that Rwanda and Uganda were targeting Hutu civilians and looting and smuggling resources like coffee, diamonds, timber and coltan from the DRC.

Josaphat Musamba, a Congolese researcher at Ghent University in Belgium, sees direct links between today’s conflicts and the wars of the 1990s in a cast of characters that remains strikingly familiar: Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame and former Congolese President Joseph Kabila – who is now based in Goma, an area under M23 control – were key players in those earlier conflicts.

“If you look at [today’s M23] commanders, you can connect them to those who were fighting in the First Congo War,” Musamba said. “All of them were working with Rwandan officers like James Kabarebe. I know two or three commanders of M23, and one of them was part of James Kabarebe’s bodyguard,” he claimed.

Kabarebe, now Rwanda’s state minister for regional integration, was a central figure in the rebellion that toppled Mobutu. He later served as army chief of staff under Laurent Kabila, the former Congolese leader and father of Joseph Kabila. Kabarebe was sanctioned by the US government for being “central to Rwanda’s support for the March 23 [M23]”.

Researchers also note that after M23’s first rebellion in the DRC failed in 2012-2013, many rebels fled across the borders to Rwanda and Uganda.

Congolese researchers say that while Kampala and Kigali may claim to be addressing security threats and rebel groups in eastern DRC – like ADF and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), whose remnants were linked to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda – they are effectively carving out zones of control and economic exploitation in eastern DRC, just as they did in the 1990s.

The Congolese people, meanwhile, remain displaced, impoverished and without security. The UN said in April that renewed fighting with M23 this year had displaced nearly four million people in North and South Kivu alone.

The British government on Sunday appointed Blaise Metreweli as the country’s first woman to serve as chief of the UK’s foreign spy service MI6.

But though she will be the first woman to lead the agency, Britain – and the world – have long had women play leading roles in espionage.

So who is Metreweli, what does the boss of MI6 – also known as “C” – do, and who are some of the other female spies that have left a mark on the field?

Who is Blaise Metreweli?

Metreweli, 47, is a career intelligence officer. Until her appointment as head of MI6, she was the director general of technology and innovation at MI6, also known as “Q”.

She joined MI6 as a case officer in 1999, and has held a range of roles since then. She has worked in Europe and the Middle East for the agency, and speaks Arabic, according to United Kingdom media.

In the past, she has also worked at MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency.

She studied anthropology at Cambridge University’s Pembroke College.

What is the role of the M16 chief?

The chief is the only publicly named member of MI6 staff and reports directly to the British foreign secretary, a position currently held by David Lammy.

M16 was formed in 1909 and collects overseas intelligence to understand threats to, and opportunities for, the UK and its overseas interests.

The agency also works in tandem with other British intelligence services, including MI5 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which focuses on intercepting and analysing electronic signals and also works on cybersecurity. MI6 also works on key partnerships such as the Five Eyes which comprise Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the United States.

Metreweli will be MI6’s 18th C. She will replace Richard Moore, who led the agency for the past five years.

Reacting to Metreweli’s appointment, Moore said: “I am absolutely delighted by this historic appointment of my colleague, Blaise Metreweli to succeed me as ‘C’. Blaise is a highly accomplished intelligence officer and leader, and one of our foremost thinkers on technology.”

In 2021, Moore said that China was the single greatest priority for M16. Recently, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer insisted that Russia poses a threat to Europe. While announcing a boost in defence infrastructure earlier this month, Starmer said: “The threat we face is more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War.”

Green ink and the codename: Why is the chief called ‘C’?

A common misconception is that C stands for chief. The chief is actually called C because Naval Officer Mansfield Smith-Cumming, the first to become chief in 1909 signed his name as C. The practice has stuck since, Moore, the outgoing C, told BBC Radio 4 in 2021.

Another immortalised practice in the spy service is that C only writes in green ink, physically and digitally, because Cumming would tend to do so, according to Moore. “Anyone getting a note in green ink knows it comes from me, and the same is true of the typescript on my computer,” Moore said in 2021.

Who are some other female spy chiefs in the UK and other countries?

Three years before Judi Dench played the first female boss of MI6 in the James Bond film, GoldenEye, Stella Rimington became the first woman director general of the real MI5 after working in different roles in the service since 1969.

In 2002, Eliza Manningham-Buller became the director general of MI5 after working for the service since 1974.

Anne Keast-Butler currently leads GCHQ. She was previously the deputy director general of M15.

In the US, Tulsi Gabbard currently serves as the director of national intelligence for President Donald Trump. Her predecessor under former US President Joe Biden was also a woman, Avril Haines.

Gina Haspel was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 2018 to 2021. In Australia, Kerri Hartland leads the foreign intelligence collection agency, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS).

What about other female spies?

During World War II in particular, women played an important role in espionage.

Prominent spies for the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) included Noor Inayat Khan, Violette Szabo and Krystyna Skarbek.

Szabo, who spent time in France during her childhood and could speak French fluently, was on a mission in France when she was captured by the Nazis and executed in a concentration camp.

Inayat Khan was a radio operator sent to Nazi-occupied France, where she was arrested and executed by the Gestapo, the secret police service of Nazi Germany. Skarbek, also known by her codename Christine Granville was a Polish SOE agent, carrying out missions across Nazi-occupied Europe and escaping German capture twice.

During World War II, American spy Virginia Hall evaded the Gestapo, organising groups of agents, recruiting French residents for safe houses and helping escaped prisoners of war.

Israeli air strikes hit targets in Iran with explosions seen in the capital Tehran. Israel says it killed Iran’s most senior military commander. There are also reports of people fleeing Tehran, after Donald Trump warned the city should be evacuated immediately.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi breaks down the latest from Tehran.

The Iranian government says parliament is drafting legislation to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as it is engaged in an escalating military conflict with Israel.

Tehran’s threat on Monday to walk away from the international treaty comes after Israel launched an unprecedented attack on Iran’s nuclear and military sites, killing several nuclear scientists and scholars along with top military commanders.

Israel has said its attacks are aimed at stopping Iran from building a nuclear bomb. Iran has insisted its nuclear programme is for peaceful, civilian purposes. Meanwhile, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons – despite never officially acknowledging its arsenal or being a signatory to the NPT.

Since Israel launched the attacks on Friday, both countries have exchanged fatal salvoes, launching ballistic missiles and drone attacks on each other’s territories. The death toll from Israel’s attacks on Iran has risen to more than 220, including 70 women and children, while over 20 people have been killed in Iranian attacks on Israel. Late on Monday, United States President Donald Trump issued a warning to residents of Tehran to flee.

So what has Tehran said about pulling out of the NPT? Why might it do so? What is the NPT? And what could be the fallout of such a decision?

What has Iran threatened?

On Monday, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that lawmakers are preparing a bill to withdraw Tehran from the NPT.

“In light of recent developments, we will take an appropriate decision,” ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said at a news conference. “[The] government has to enforce parliament bills, but such a proposal is just being prepared, and we will coordinate in the later stages with parliament.”

President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran has no plans to develop nuclear weapons and its nuclear activities remain focused on peaceful energy production and research.

Pezeshkian further said Tehran’s policies align with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s longstanding religious edict against weapons of mass destruction. “The Zionist regime is the only possessor of weapons of mass destruction in the region,” Baghaei said, referring to the Israeli government.

What is the NPT?

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a landmark international treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

It was opened for signature on July 1, 1968, and entered into force on March 5, 1970. The treaty was negotiated by the US, Soviet Union and Britain.

Under the NPT, nuclear-weapon states agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or assist nonnuclear-weapon states in developing them. Nonnuclear-weapon states also agree not to seek or acquire nuclear weapons.

The treaty views nuclear-weapon states as those that manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear device before January 1, 1967. Those countries are the US, Britain, France, China and Russia. The treaty also paves a path for these original nuclear weapons powers to phase out their arsenals.

The treaty supports the right of all signatories to access nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under safeguards overseen by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Among the 11 articles of the treaty, one enables a country to withdraw with three months notice “if it decides that extraordinary events … have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country”.

Why would an Iranian withdrawal be significant?

Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the nonprofit Arms Control Association, told Al Jazeera that she wasn’t surprised by Iranian threats to withdraw from the NPT.

“The Israeli attacks are driving debate in Iran about whether nuclear weapons are necessary to deter future attacks,” Davenport said. “[The] NPT withdrawal would be a signal of how seriously Iran is considering weapons development.”

Iran signed the NPT in July 1968 and ratified it in February 1970 as a nonnuclear-weapon state. It has since said its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and research. The IAEA has conducted inspections under the treaty’s safeguards system.

To be sure, withdrawal from the NPT wouldn’t automatically mean that Iran would build a nuclear weapon. Officially, the Iranian government’s position on not seeking nuclear arms remains unchanged.

But if it exits the treaty, Iran would no longer be bound by the NPT’s requirements, including oversight by the IAEA, obligations related to nuclear transparency and a commitment to not building a nuclear bomb.

Without IAEA safeguards, UN inspectors and the rest of the world would have less knowledge of Iran’s nuclear programme – which in turn could spark concerns that Tehran could choose to secretly advance towards developing nuclear weapons.

Could an Iranian withdrawal from the NPT impact the treaty’s legitimacy?

“If Iran withdraws from the NPT and develops nuclear weapons, there could be a ripple effect in the region,” Davenport said. “Other states may similarly feel pressured to acquire a nuclear deterrent.”

She described the NPT as a “critical bulwark” against the spread of nuclear weapons.

“Any erosion would be destabilising. Failing to resolve Iran’s nuclear crisis would deal a serious blow to the treaty,” she told Al Jazeera.

Davenport said she believes diplomacy still deserves a shot.

“The first step is to press for de-escalation and a return of IAEA inspectors to Iranian nuclear facilities. It is critical for the agency to begin to assess the damage at Iran’s nuclear sites and account for Iran’s nuclear materials,” she said.

At the same time, she said, the US needs to work with Russia and China – allies of Iran – to persuade Tehran against walking away from the NPT.

An “Iranian withdrawal from the NPT will have a negative impact by pushing more states to consider the benefits of withdrawal or use withdrawal threats as leverage,” she warned.

Which countries are NPT signatories – and which are not?

As of 2025, 191 countries are parties to the NPT, making it one of the most widely adhered-to arms control agreements.

But four nuclear weapons states – India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – are not members of the NPT regime.

Of these, India, Pakistan and Israel – and South Sudan – never joined the treaty. North Korea was a party to the treaty but withdrew from it in 2003.

Have the NPT and IAEA faced criticism?

The nuclear nonproliferation regime and its leading oversight agency, the IAEA, have both faced criticism over the years.

India, for instance, has repeatedly defended its refusal to sign the NPT by describing the treaty as “discriminatory, unequal and flawed” because it allows those who had nuclear weapons on a specific date to continue to have them while banning others from access to atomic bombs. The NPT, in effect, divides the world “into nuclear haves and have‑nots”, India has argued, pointing out that the treaty does not force the US, Russia, China, France and the UK to eliminate their atomic weapons.

Meanwhile, the IAEA has come under criticism from Iran over a recent censure from the agency that Tehran said facilitated Israel’s attack.

The IAEA resolution last week accused Iran of a lack of transparency over its nuclear programme. “Those voting for the [IAEA] resolution prepared the ground for the attack” by Israel, Baghaei said.

What did the IAEA say in its censure of Iran?

The IAEA said Iran was not cooperating with verifications relating to its nuclear programme.

Iran, the UN agency said, had not provided “credible explanations” for the presence of uranium particles at multiple “undeclared locations” or information on the location of nuclear material.

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the IAEA, also said the agency was concerned about “the rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran”.

When the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 opened on Saturday, Lionel Messi, arguably the world’s greatest footballer, weaved his magic on the field as a cluster of former stars – David Beckham, Ronaldo, Kaka, Bebeto, Roberto Baggio and Javier Zanetti – watched on from their VIP seats at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami.

While Messi was unable to score any goals in Inter Miami’s 0-0 draw against Egyptian club Al Ahly, football fans turned up in their thousands to watch the Argentinian lead his team in what could have been a goal-fest for the home side.

The organisers, led by FIFA President Gianni Infantino, appeared pleased with the tournament opener and would have hoped for the goals, spectators and popularity to increase as the Club World Cup progressed.

Infantino has treated the tournament as his personal project and aimed to bring the biggest names in football to the United States, one of the co-hosts for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

From the unusual last-minute addition of Messi’s Inter Miami to the main draw, to his attempts at luring Portugal superstar Cristiano Ronaldo to sign for a participating club and increasing the winner’s prize money by a whopping $35m, the FIFA chief has pulled out all the stops to support his grand proclamation that the Club World Cup is “the start of something historic that will change our sport for the better”.

However, three days in, the tournament, billed by FIFA as the most elite global club competition, has failed to match the hype created by the sport’s governing body.

Here’s what’s gone wrong with the Club World Cup thus far:

Poor match scheduling and player burnout

Kickoffs scheduled at noon and 3pm local time on scorching hot summer days have led to players dealing with difficult conditions. Some of these teams have finished full league and cup competition seasons in their respective countries and confederations.

Others – from the US, South America and Oceania – have hit pause on their regular seasons and will return to their respective leagues after the Club World Cup.

The tournament has been subject to criticism from regional football bodies and players’ unions long before the first kick of the opening game.

“The decision today to schedule the FIFA Club World Cup between June 15 and July 13 without implementing further player workload safeguards demonstrates a lack of consideration for the mental and physical health of participating players, as well as a disregard for their personal and family lives,” players’ union FIFPRO said in a statement when the tournament schedule was released in 2024.

“The extreme mental and physical pressures at the pinnacle of the game is the principal concern of players with multiple club and national team competitions, leading to exhaustion, physical injuries, mental health issues, diminished performance, and risks to career longevity,” the statement added.

FIFPRO called for the consideration of player health and safety regulations as a “matter of urgency” but that failed to deter FIFA from tinkering with the schedule.

Mismatched teams and dead rubbers

Auckland City, a club made up of amateur players with full-time day jobs, opened their campaign against six-time European champions Bayern Munich and were handed a 10-0 thumping.

The 34-time German champions, fielding a full-strength team, scored four goals in the first 21 minutes of the game in front of a hapless Auckland defence.

Add to it the fact that the fixture seemed more of a practice outing than a challenge for the Bundesliga side, with Bayern coach Vincent Kompany saying: “The next game against Boca Juniors will be the highlight of the group stage.”

While minnows and favourites are often pitted together in global tournaments such as the FIFA World Cup, Oceania champions Auckland will also face Argentinian powerhouse Boca Juniors and Portuguese side Benfica in an incredibly tough draw for the team from New Zealand.

It seems unfair for the team rated 4,957th in the world in the Opta Power Rankings to take on opponents ranked sixth (Bayern Munich), 24th (Benfica) and 131st (Boca Juniors).

Empty stadiums and low ticket sales

While Messi-mania brought the crowds in the tournament opener in Miami on June 14, and European champions PSG thrashed Atletico Madrid in front of 80,000 Los Angeles fans at the famous Rose Bowl a day later, the same cannot be said for some of the other fixtures.

Monday’s Chelsea vs LAFC encounter at the Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta was played out in front of less than one-third of the stadium’s capacity.

The US-based side are often able to draw close to full-capacity crowds at their home venue in Los Angeles, and Chelsea rarely play in front of so many empty seats, whether at home or away.

The stark contrast from the fervent fan support at their Stamford Bridge home in London prompted Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca to say the atmosphere in Atlanta was “a bit strange.”

The 71,000-capacity venue saw the 3pm kickoff match play out in front of 22,137 spectators.

“I think the environment was a bit strange,” Maresca said after the game.

Of the remaining 36 group-stage games, 13 will be afternoon kickoffs on a weekday and the low ticket sales for the first phase of the tournament could mean that organisers will struggle to fill up the venues.

Strict security measures, which include the presence of border patrol officials and presenting passports as proof of identity, may also deter fans from thronging the venues.

Israel has carried out strikes across Iran while Tehran returned fire with missiles as the foes traded attacks for a fifth straight day.

The ongoing violence on Tuesday came after United States President Donald Trump struck an ominous note, calling for the immediate evacuation of Tehran. Concerns that the US could spark a wider regional war should it enter direct conflict with Iran continue to build.

The Israeli military reported early on Tuesday that it carried out “several extensive strikes” on what it said were missile sites and other military targets in western Iran, striking dozens of missile and drone facilities.

Iranian media reported that loud explosions were heard in the northwestern city of Tabriz, home to an air force base that Israel has repeatedly targeted since it launched a surprise assault on Iran’s military and nuclear facilities on Friday.

Three people were killed and four injured in strikes on the central city of Kashan, Iran’s state-run Nour News reported.

A residential building was struck in Tehran, and three people were rescued from the rubble, the reports added.

Israel’s military said Iran had also fired more missiles, reporting that its forces were working to intercept them.

Explosions were heard over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem among other areas. Images showed plumes of dark smoke rising from the site of a strike in Herzliya as emergency services were deployed at the scene.

Israel’s national emergency service said 10 people were injured while running to shelters after air raid sirens sounded in Tel Aviv.

Israel claims another general

Amid the strikes, the Israeli military claimed that it had assassinated another senior Iranian military official.

General Ali Shadmani was killed in a strike by the Israeli air force in central Tehran through the use of precise intelligence, the military said, describing him as Iran’s wartime chief of staff, “senior-most military official” ​​and the closest military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Shadmani was reportedly appointed to his new post after Israel assassinated the former commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, Gholam Ali Rashid, on Friday.

Iran did not immediately comment on the claim, which came days after Israel assassinated a slew of Iran’s top generals as well as nuclear scientists.

‘Evacuate Tehran’

The attacks unfolded in the face of growing calls internationally for the bitter foes to de-escalate.

However, Trump, who left the Group of Seven summit in Canada on Monday, one day early, due to the situation in the Middle East, appears to be increasingly backing Israel, issuing ominous messages.

In a post on social media overnight, he warned that “everyone should evacuate Tehran immediately,” lamenting the “waste of human life” in the conflict and reiterating that Iran could not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

He denied his exit from the G7 was to arrange a ceasefire.

“Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a ‘cease fire’ between Israel and Iran,” he wrote.

“Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that.”

Macron had said, in light of Trump’s early departure from the summit, that talks were under way and stated that an offer for a ceasefire had been made, but he did not specify by whom.

In a statement agreed at the summit before Trump’s departure, G7 leaders described Iran as “the principal source of regional instability and terror”, adding that Israel “has a right to defend itself”.