Israel deliberately targeting medical facilities in south Lebanon, say health workers | Lebanon | The Guardian

Israel deliberately targeting medical facilities in south Lebanon, say health workers

"Medics and officials say there is systematic use of double-tap strikes in campaign to make the south uninhabitable

William Christou

Damage following Israel's attack on Nabatieh on 5 March. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

Lebanese healthcare workers and officials say Israeli bombings have deliberately targeted medical workers and facilities in south Lebanon, including through the use of double-tap strikes, in what they describe as a systematic effort to make the area unlivable.

Since the war began on 2 March, Israel has struck at least 128 medical facilities and ambulances across south Lebanon, killing 40 healthcare workers and wounding 107, according to the Lebanese ministry of health. The war started when Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel, triggering an Israeli military campaign.

Most of the strikes on medics happened while they were sitting in ambulances or at first aid centres, several of which have been destroyed in south Lebanon. Israel has also carried out at least five double-tap strikes, a tactic in which an initial strike is followed by a pause, allowing medical workers to arrive before the area is bombed for a second time.

Medical workers and hospitals are protected under international law and deliberately targeting them could constitute a war crime. Amnesty International said on Thursday that, regardless of political affiliation, medical workers are considered civilians and targeting them is unlawful.

The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Nabatieh. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

The Guardian conducted interviews with nine medical workers, including eyewitnesses of Israeli strikes on three separate medical facilities, visited three destroyed medical centres in the Nabatieh and Tyre governorates and inspected two damaged ambulances. None of the sites showed evidence of military use.

The Israeli military accused Hezbollah of using ambulances for military purposes last week, saying it would “act in accordance with international law” if the practice continued. The Israeli army made the same accusation in 2024; it has not provided any evidence or proof for its claims. The Lebanese ministry of health condemned the accusation, calling it an attempt to provide justification for war crimes.

The Israeli military did not respond to a request for a comment on the specific strikes at the medical centres visited by the Guardian, nor on the allegations that it deliberately struck medical workers or employed double-tap strikes.

The vast majority of attacks have been against the Islamic Health Association (IHA), a health service affiliated with Hezbollah that works with the Lebanese ministry of health. Israeli strikes have also hit the state civil defence service, the Amal movement’s Islamic Scouts Association health service, a local healthcare charity and the Lebanese Red Cross.

Islamic Health Association first responders and a damaged ambulance in Tyre. Photograph: Sally Hayden/Sopa Images/Shutterstock

According to medical workers in the region, the attacks were designed to make life “uninhabitable” in south Lebanon and should be viewed as part and parcel of other Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure. During the last Hezbollah-Israel war in 2024, nearly 230 medical workers were killed by Israel in Lebanon.

“The Israeli enemy is trying as much as possible to prevent life in our region and push people to flee. Our role is to help people, to stand by them and to provide services so they can remain on their land,” said Abdullah Nour el-Din, the head of IHA emergency response south of the Litani River, while standing in front of a dozen destroyed ambulances.

He recounted how, unable to find accommodation in cities farther north, many displaced people had returned to their homes – despite being in an area the Israeli army ordered to be evacuated. Shortly after returning home, bombs hit their houses.

When first responders went to rescue the wounded, they too were struck.

Nour el-Din said: “We have seen what look like double-tap strikes – striking, waiting for paramedics, then striking again. In Seddiqin, they were putting out a blaze and were hit again. In Nabatieh, they were rescuing civilians when they were attacked.”

Healthcare workers also said they had noticed a pattern of Israeli strikes targeting healthcare facilities and ambulances when first responders gathered to break the Ramadan fast at sundown.

An Israeli airstrike hit an IHA emergency response centre on 8 March in the southern town of Zifta, completely destroying it, killing two employees and paralysing another. Hussein Moshawrab, the new head of the centre, recalled how he had FaceTimed with the staff there shortly before the strike, discussing what they were eating for dinner.

“I did a video call with them at iftar, because we can’t all gather due to the danger of being struck. The next time I saw them was when they were under the rubble,” Moshawrab said, recalling how he raced to arrive at the scene. The two-storey centre is now completely collapsed, the section of the roof where the employees were eating now on the ground. The building also hosted a municipal police station.

The remains of the medical centre in Bourj Qalaway, where 12 medics were killed in an airstrike. Photograph: Sally Hayden/Sopa Images/Shutterstock

Paramedics said that because they may be targeted by Israeli strikes, they have begun taking precautions so that if they are killed, others do not die alongside them.

The number of people in each medical team has been reduced from three to two. First responders are not allowed to visit family or friends during working hours and must keep their distance from others. They sleep in ambulances parked far apart, so a single strike does not kill them all.

“We try not to behave unusually, not do anything out of the ordinary, and remain as conspicuous as possible to the drone above, so that it’s clear that you’re a medic and there’s no excuse to hit us,” said Ali Nasr al-Din, his eyes red-rimmed from lack of sleep. He had spent the night pulling out his colleagues from the rubble after Israel struck the civil defence centre he runs. 

“You can take as many precautions as you want, but if in the end, the other party doesn’t care about ethics, it won’t matter,” he said. “Your mind starts to wonder: what if they categorised us as a target, what if they hit us? But you can’t think about that.”

Medical sectors are being attacked as hospitals in south Lebanon are facing a flood of wounded. In 17 days of fighting, more than 1,000 people have been killed and 2,584 wounded by Israeli strikes, the Lebanese health ministry said.

In the Nabih Berri governmental hospital in Nabatieh on Wednesday, a man screamed in pain as he was wheeled into the operating room. The smell of burning flesh filled the room as he passed. He was standing next to a petrol station when it was struck by Israel and most of his body was covered in burns.

Destroyed ambulances and a fire engine lined up in a car park in Tyre. Photograph: Sally Hayden/Sopa Images/Shutterstock

Ali Tfyali, a 26-year-old cinema graduate, stood outside the operating room, shaking with each thud of an airstrike outside. His brother and sister had been killed by a strike on their home 90 minutes earlier while he stopped by the neighbours’ house to feed their livestock.

“It’s tougher this time. The bombing seems more vicious. We are getting less wounded people coming in, and more already dead,” said Dr Hassan Wazni, the head of the Nabatieh governmental hospital. A day earlier, two of his staff were injured as an airstrike hit the hospital perimeter, showering them with glass.

The pressure on first responders is immense. One paramedic, Nidal Jafal, was recording a video as he raced to an airstrike. He began to scream when he reached the collapsed house. “My mother and father are gone!” he cried out, realising it was his parents’ house that was struck.

“If you asked me before the war, will I return to work as a paramedic again, I would have said, ‘Hell, no’. We all would have,” said Ali Nasr al-Din. “But then the war started again and all of a sudden we found ourselves helping. What else can we do? This is our home.”

Israel deliberately targeting medical facilities in south Lebanon, say health workers | Lebanon | The Guardian

Striking Down Pentagon Press Limits, Judge Vindicates Independent Journalism - The New York Times

Striking Down Pentagon Press Limits, Judge Vindicates Independent Journalism

"The ruling cut deeper than left-versus-right politics, declaring that the policy imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is unconstitutional.

Published March 20, 2026  Updated March 21, 2026, 10:12 a.m. ET

Reporters carried their belongings as they left the Pentagon after turning in their press passes last year.Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By Charlie Savage

Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy. He reported from Washington.

A federal judge on Friday forcefully defended the constitutional freedom to report independently and without government control, striking down the Trump administration’s unprecedented restrictions on reporters that have emptied the Pentagon’s halls of traditional journalists at a time of expanding war.

“A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription,” wrote Judge Paul L. Friedman of the Federal District Court in Washington.

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech,” he continued. “That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”

In his 40-page ruling, Judge Friedman dissected the policy imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has made Pentagon press passes available since October only to people who signed agreements not to solicit information the Trump administration has not approved for release.

A broad range of news outlets balked at the requirement. They included mainstream publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, broadcast news programs and wire services, and conservative-leaning outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Examiner and The Daily Caller.

When the reporters turned in their credentials, a new press corps took their place. Passes were issued to Trump loyalists like Laura Loomer, an activist; Matt Gaetz, a former congressman President Trump initially wanted to make attorney general; James O’Keefe, the founder of a conservative sting video group; Mike Lindell of MyPillow, who has started a digital news site; and a handful of other commentators, conspiracy theorists and outlets that are mostly unabashed political boosters of Mr. Trump.

The New York Times filed suit in the name of one of its national security reporters, Julian E. Barnes. Strikingly, multiple large news outlets declined to risk joining the litigation, although the Pentagon Press Association filed a friend-of-the-court brief.

It has been a grim time for press freedom. The Pentagon’s policy, overseen by its chief spokesman, Sean Parnell, is just one way in which Mr. Trump and his administration have challenged or undermined norms of independent journalism, penalizing news organizations for articles they deem to be critical and seeking greater control over coverage.

Mr. Trump has filed defamation lawsuits against news organizations owned by corporations with business before the government and sued or threatened to sue others, including The Times. Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded protections for reporters caught up in leak investigations, and the F.B.I. searched a Washington Post reporter’s home. The chairman of the F.C.C., Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, has threatened to pull licenses over coverage he dislikes.

Against that backdrop, the judge’s repudiation of rules that led to the exodus of credentialed Pentagon reporters from virtually every mainstream news outlet stands, at least for now, as a vigorous affirmation of constitutional press freedom.

The policy, the judge wrote, violated the First Amendment because it amounted to viewpoint discrimination and was unreasonable, and violated the Fifth Amendment because it was vague and granted too much arbitrary power to officials who could dispense favors or punishment at will.

“The considerations that may or may not lead to a reporter being deemed ‘a security or safety risk’ include obtaining or attempting to obtain any information that the department has not approved for release, regardless of whether that information is classified,” the judge wrote. “But to state the obvious, obtaining and attempting to obtain information is what journalists do. A primary way in which journalists obtain information is by asking questions.”

The ruling is just a first step. Judge Friedman was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The Trump administration has lost many cases before judges at the lower court level, only to prevail on appeal, especially before the Supreme Court, which is dominated by a Republican-appointed supermajority.

But the core part of the ruling — its finding that the policy was aimed at and produced unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination — cuts deeper than left-versus-right politics in American democracy.

The Trump administration had argued that its policy could not be discriminatory because journalists at conservative outlets were among those who refused to sign it. True enough, the judge wrote, but beside the point. The viewpoint Mr. Hegseth was discriminating against, he said, was not liberalism or conservatism, but the view that journalism must be independent.

“The record evidence supports the conclusion that the policy discriminates not based on political viewpoint but rather based on editorial viewpoint — that is, whether the individual or organization is willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by department leadership,” he wrote.

The judge concluded that “the undisputed evidence” showed the policy’s “true purpose and practical effect: to weed out disfavored journalists — those who were not, in the department’s view, ‘on board and willing to serve’ — and replace them with news entities that are.”

The cited quotation came from a statement by the press secretary for the Pentagon, Kingsley Wilson, at a Dec. 2 briefing in which she approvingly told the reconstituted press corps that it was composed of people “on board and willing to serve our commander in chief.”

Judge Friedman called this “viewpoint discrimination, full stop.” He also described it as a “sea change” in the Pentagon’s relationship with journalists who, in the past, did not have their credentials effectively revoked even when they were critical of the Defense Department or published classified information like the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War.

“The court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected,” he concluded, adding that the ruling was coming at a particularly crucial time.

“Especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran,” he wrote, “it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing — so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election.”

Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy for The Times.""

Striking Down Pentagon Press Limits, Judge Vindicates Independent Journalism - The New York Times

“Inherent contempt power!” Bondi gets news she feared - YouTube

 

Inherent contempt power!” Bondi gets news she feared - YouTube

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse DESTROYS ICE After They GRAB the Wrong Kid - YouTube

 

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse DESTROYS ICE After They GRAB the Wrong Kid - YouTube

Prosecutor drops BOMB on Bondi amid Epstein update - YouTube

 

Prosecutor drops BOMB on Bondi amid Epstein update - YouTube

Rep. Jasmine Crockett Calls Out $3 BILLION War Push: “We Can Bomb Countries But Not Feed Americans?”

 

Lawrence: Gabbard defying, not protecting Trump, in refusing to agree Iran posed imminent threat

 

  

Lawrence: Gabbard defying, not protecting Trump, in refusing to agree Iran posed imminent threat - YouTube

 

The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Decision Hinges on a Case You’ve Never Heard Of

​

“The Supreme Court will hear Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for certain children. The case hinges on the 1844 New York inheritance case, Lynch v. Clarke, where Judge Sandford ruled that a child born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents was a citizen. This precedent, emphasizing birthright citizenship regardless of parental domicile, contradicts the Trump administration’s argument and is significant in the ongoing debate about the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

​

Smita GhoshMarch 18, 202612:58 PM

Abraham Lincoln’s attorney general, Edward Bates, cited the case. Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Hulton/Archive/Getty Images, National Archives, and Getty Images Plus.

Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a weekly newsletter that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law—and how the law is pushing back.

On April 1, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Trump v. Barbara, a class-action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for certain people. No one will be surprised to hear lawyers discussing the text of the 14^th Amendment’s citizenship clause and the history that led to its ratification—that clearly relates to the Trump administration’s claim that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to children of “undocumented” or “temporarily present” noncitizens because their parents cannot establish “domicile,” meaning permanent presence in the country. But court watchers may not expect to hear debate about an 1844 inheritance case from New York. Yet that case, Lynch v. Clarke, has become incredibly important. Indeed, it may be instrumental in determining the fate of millions of American-born infants.

In the 1844 case, Judge Lewis Sandford held that Julia Lynch, the child of Irish parents who was born during their “temporary sojourn” in New York, was a U.S. citizen. The issue arose amid a heated battle over the fate of Lynch & Clarke, a firm that sold bottled spring water from Saratoga Springs to New York City residents in the early 1800s. Thomas Lynch and John Clarke were partners in the firm until Lynch died in 1833. Lynch had no will, and his only surviving heirs, which included his brother Bernard and a deceased brother’s daughter—his niece Julia—lived in Ireland. A year after Thomas’ death, when Julia was 15, she and her uncle Bernard sailed to New York and geared themselves for a fight for Thomas’ property.

Things came to a head in the early 1840s when the case became a family battle over Julia’s citizenship. In New York, as in many other states at the time, noncitizens could not inherit land. Bernard therefore argued that Julia was not a citizen, which meant that his claim over the property was stronger than hers (he was born in Ireland, but had naturalized in 1834).

But Bernard faced a problem: Julia was born in the United States. To get around that issue, Bernard and his lawyers painted a picture of U.S. citizenship law that would be familiar to anyone who has read the Trump administration’s brief in Trump v. Barbara. They claimed that Julia was not a citizen because her parents were only temporary visitors to the United States and lacked a permanent “residence or domicile” there. In Bernard’s telling, citizenship was not the product of “mere accidental birth,” but rather the “political condition” of the parents. He conceded that Julia would be an American citizen under English legal principles, under which everyone “born in her dominions” was a “subject,” but he argued that the colonists, when declaring independence from British tyranny, had also liberated themselves from the common-law rule of birthright citizenship.

Judge Sandford rejected these arguments. His opinion was a firm endorsement of the principle that being born in the United States entitled someone to citizenship, no matter the domicile of their parents. He did not rely on Julia’s argument that she was a citizen because her parents were, in fact, domiciled in the United States when she was born. Instead, he explicitly concluded that though Julia’s parents lacked any permanent domicile or “expectation of remaining” in the country, these facts did not prevent her from acquiring American citizenship by birth.

Sandford also rejected Bernard’s argument that Americans had abandoned the English concept of birthright citizenship. He acknowledged that American authorities had rejected some aspects of British law and society. But he concluded that birthright citizenship was by now distinctively American. As Sandford recounted, the Founders understood that their new nation was, in James Madison’s words, “indebted to emigration for her settlement and prosperity.” American authorities therefore embraced the rule of birthright citizenship, referring, for example, to a “natural born citizen” in various statutes and cases.

Related From Slate

Hannah Story Brown

Sam Alito’s Latest Reversal at the Supreme Court Is an Absolute Embarrassment

Read More

In today’s birthright citizenship battle, Sandford’s opinion in Lynch v. Clarke is a problematic precedent for the Trump administration. By holding that neither the temporariness of a noncitizen’s stay in the United States nor their intention to remain there had any bearing on the citizenship of their U.S.-born children, Lynch illustrates that the traditional concept of citizenship was broader than the permanent-allegiance-and-domicile rule that Trump’s lawyers are advancing. To be sure, Lynch is not a Supreme Court case, and it was decided over two decades before the 14^th Amendment was added to the Constitution. But Lynch sheds light on the meaning of the 14^th Amendment’s citizenship clause because it represents the state of the law before the amendment was ratified, and the clause, according to its Framers, was ratified to confirm—not change—this aspect of existing law.  

The Trump administration doesn’t disagree that Lynch is bad precedent for its side.  Instead, it emphasizes that the case was just a single case, and points to two instances where other authorities disagreed with Sandford’s opinion.

What the administration neglects to mention is that the opinion was a big part of the 19^th-century legal culture from which the citizenship clause emerged. Lynch was cited by several members of the Congress that drafted the 14^thAmendment. In 1866, for instance, Rep. William Lawrence of Ohio made a speech highlighting Sandford’s declaration in the syllabus, or published summary of the case, that Julia’s birth in the United States made her a citizen “without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” (While one scholar emphasizes that this quotation doesn’t appear in Sandford’s opinion, the summary was written by Judge Sandford himself, because Sandford, unlike many judges, wrote and published the reports of his own cases.) Several years later, Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull, who played an active role in the citizenship clause’s passage, cited Lynch while recounting the drafting of the clause.

What’s more, the case was quoted in several legal guides, including one international law tome that the Trump administration itself cites in its brief, and in Kent’s Commentaries, which one historian called the “most influential American law book of the antebellum period.”

Lynch made its mark on the executive branch, too. It was cited by two attorneysgeneral when resolving issues of citizenship law. Local newspapers publicized Sandford’s opinion as well, both by publishing the speeches of the lawmakerswho discussed it and by recounting the story of a young woman from Ireland and the “great and laborious” research project Sandford undertook to confirm her citizenship.

In part, Lynch was influential because of the deep connection between birthright citizenship, racial equality, and abolitionism. As scholars like Amanda Frost, Kate Masur and Martha Jones demonstrate, abolitionists and free Black activists used the concept of citizenship by birthright to make claims of freedom and otherwise challenge inequitable and terrifying circumstances. This activism inspired official action. For example, Abraham Lincoln’s attorney general, Edward Bates, cited Kent’s Commentaries (which, again, cited Lynch) to describe the “true principle” of birthright citizenship in an influential opinionconcluding that Black Americans were citizens of the United States. (Lawmakers cited Bates’ opinion, in addition to Lynch, when drafting the citizenship clause.) Cases like Lynch helped legitimize claims for Black citizenship, portraying birthright citizenship as an American tradition. As one newspaper (which, you guessed it, cited Lynch) recounted, these cases served as a notification that the “law, which is considerably older than the Republican party, is just as radical as ‘Radicals.’ ”

Scholars and advocates on both sides of Trump’s citizenship order have engaged in what feels like a battle of the citations to elevate or undermine Lynch v. Clarke. To some extent, the battle over Lynch is emblematic of legal practice in the Supreme Court’s text-and-history era, in which lawyers arm themselves with text-searchable databases to undercut one another’s claims about what happened in the past. But in this case, the extent of historical evidence that the government ignores to make its claim is staggering. To be sure, Lynch is just one case, but it is an important one. The Supreme Court should appreciate that.“

Top LAWYER'S Powerful Speech on Racism Leaves White Americans in SHOCK

 Bacon's Rebellion, which took place in 1676, stands as one of the most significant and complex uprisings in colonial American history. It was a localized conflict in the Virginia Colony that eventually exposed deep-seated tensions between the frontier settlers and the ruling elite in Jamestown.

Key Drivers of the Conflict

The rebellion was fueled by a combination of economic frustration, perceived government corruption, and disputes over Indian policy.

 * Frontier Safety: Settlers on the western edges of the colony felt neglected by the colonial government. They demanded the removal of Native Americans from land they wished to occupy, but Governor William Berkeley refused to support a war against the tribes, fearing it would disrupt the lucrative fur trade.

 * Economic Inequality: Small farmers and former indentured servants were struggling with falling tobacco prices, rising taxes, and a lack of available land, while the "Green Spring" faction (Berkeley’s inner circle) held most of the power and wealth.

 * Leadership: Nathaniel Bacon, a young and ambitious cousin of Berkeley's wife, emerged as the leader of the disgruntled settlers. Despite being a member of the elite himself, he defied Berkeley’s orders and led unauthorized attacks on Native American groups.

Major Events

The rebellion escalated from a series of skirmishes into a full-scale civil war within the colony:

 * The Declaration of the People: Bacon issued this manifesto, accusing Berkeley of being "wicked" and "unjust" and criticizing the governor’s tax policies and failure to protect the frontier.

 * The Burning of Jamestown: In September 1676, Bacon’s forces marched on the capital. Berkeley fled, and the rebels burned Jamestown to the ground to prevent the governor from retaking it.

 * The Collapse: The rebellion lost momentum abruptly when Nathaniel Bacon died of dysentery in October 1676. Without its charismatic leader, the movement splintered, and Berkeley returned to power with the help of English naval forces, executing many of the primary rebels.

Historical Significance

While the rebellion failed in its immediate goals, its long-term consequences shaped the future of the American colonies:

 * The Shift to Slavery: To prevent future alliances between poor white and Black indentured servants—who had fought side-by-side in Bacon's army—the Virginian elite began to rely more heavily on enslaved African labor. This transition was codified through the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705, which sought to create a permanent racial underclass.

 * Frontier Policy: The rebellion forced the colonial government to take a more aggressive stance toward westward expansion and the removal of Native Americans to appease white settlers.

 * Tension with England: The unrest prompted the English Crown to take a closer interest in Virginia’s internal affairs, marking an early chapter in the push-and-pull between colonial autonomy and royal control.

Would you like me to look into the specific legal codes that were passed in Virginia following the rebellion?

Justin Pearson Blasts GOP State Rep’s Bible Defense of Slavery

 

This MAGA Pundit Had No Answer After Ashley Allison Asked Him THIS Question

 

Gabbard grilled on war with Iran, FBI election raid in Georgia

 

Middle East crisis live: Israel strike on Iranian gas field reportedly coordinated with US; Tehran confirms intelligence minister killed

"UAE and Qatar condemn targeting of South Pars gas field; Esmail Khatib confirmed killed

2h ago

Moment building in central Beirut collapses after Israeli strike – video

10.52 EDT

Israel strike on Iranian gas field coordinated with US – report

Israel’s strike against Iran’s South Pars gas field was coordinated with and approved by the Trump administration, the American news website Axios reported, citing two senior Israeli officials.

The report says a US defence official also confirmed the claim.

The offshore gas field in the Persian Gulf, which Iran shares with Qatar, is the largest such facility in the world. Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesman, Majed Al Ansari, described the targeting of the field — an extension of Qatar’s North Field — as a “dangerous and irresponsible step”.

21m ago12.30 EDT

Tulsi Gabbard also cited unspecified reports that China, India and other countries have been able to move tankers through the strait of Hormuz but it was not clear how much has been crossed through the channel controlled by Iran.

“There has been some reporting of China, India and other countries being able to move their tankers through the Strait. However, it is unclear the volume or the measure of that,” Gabbard said at a Senate hearing on worldwide threats.

There's no paywall here

Apologies for the brief interruption. We hope you’re appreciating these factual, verified, up-to-the-minute news updates provided by our expert reporters.

You won't find a paywall around our live blogs – or any of our news, because the Guardian believes that access to trustworthy information is vital for democracy.

In a time of increasing misinformation spread by bad actors, extremist media and autocratic politicians, real, reliable journalism has never been more important – and we’re proud to be able to make ours free thanks to the generous support of readers like you. 

By helping fund the Guardian today, you can play a vital role in combating the bad faith and self-interest of a powerful few who spread lies to undermine our democracy, enrich themselves, and stoke division between Americans.

Before you get back to reading the news, we would be grateful if you could take half a minute to give us your support. We value whatever you can spare, but a recurring contribution makes the most impact, enabling greater investment in our most crucial, fearless journalism. Thank you.

31m ago12.21 EDT

Asked about reports that US intelligence suggests the Iranian regime will likely remain in place “weakened but more hardline”, intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard says she will not comment on leaked “so-called intelligence”.

She tells the Senate’s intelligence committee that the regime maintains power in Iran “even though they are vastly degraded”.

Asked if the killing of the supreme leader made him a “martyr”, Gabbard added that the Iranians are using his death as a “call to arms”.

44m ago12.08 EDT

The Israeli military told AFP on Wednesday that “debris” had hit Ben Gurion Airport following Iranian missile fire, without specifying when the incident had occurred.

Israeli media reported that private planes parked at the international airport near Tel Aviv had sustained damage.

The army lifted the censorship order regarding the incident on Wednesday but did not authorise the disclosure of the date.

1h ago11.48 EDT

UAE condemns targeting of South Pars gas field, after Iran blames US and Israel

The UAE condemned the targeting on Wednesday of Iranian facilities in a gas field shared with Qatar, calling the attack attributed by Iran to the US and Israel a “dangerous escalation” in a rare rebuke.

“The United Arab Emirates affirmed that targeting energy facilities linked to the South Pars gas field in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is an extension of the North Field in the sisterly State of Qatar, constitutes a dangerous escalation,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

“Targeting energy infrastructure poses a direct threat to global energy security... It also entails serious environmental repercussions and exposes civilians, maritime security, and vital civilian and industrial facilities to direct risks,” it added.

1h ago11.33 EDT

Israel and Hezbollah are engaged in intense ground clashes in at least three strategic areas in south Lebanon as Israel continues to push on with its ground invasion of its neighbour, according to a Lebanese security source and residents of the affected towns.

Much of the fighting was concentrated around the strategic hilltop city of Khiam, with the Israel Defense Forces carrying out an air and artillery campaign against Hezbollahfighters dug into the city. Fighting escalated there after days of clashes, with a Hezbollah spokesperson acknowledging there were “heightened clashes” on the eastern and northern outskirts of the city.

As fighting continued in Khiam, Israeli troops attempted to push into border towns in the central and western sectors of south Lebanon. A resident of the Aita al-Chaab border village said fighting was intense between Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah fighters there.

A Lebanese security source said that the village was one of a number of border towns that was the site of heavy fighting as Israel tried to infiltrate southern Lebanon through a number of points along the shared border. There, they had been met with resistance by members of Hezbollah.

The fighting came as Israel amassed troops along the border, bringing four brigades and columns of tanks ahead of an expanded ground invasion of south Lebanon. The Israeli military said that already it had started a “limited ground operation,” as the political echelon discussed expanding the campaign.

The war was triggered when Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel on 2 March. Israel quickly launched a military operation on Lebanon with the goal of completely eliminating Hezbollah. Hezbollah styled the war as one of survival for Lebanon, saying it was defending the country from the near-daily Israeli airstrikes on the country since the November 2024 ceasefire between the two parties. Outside Hezbollah’s constituency, the move to drag Lebanon into a war was deeply unpopular.

The latest hostilities are a contest between Israel’s airpower and Hezbollah’s guerrilla fighters. Experts said the ground fighting in Lebanon was now centred on strategic axes, in particular Khiam, which could determine Hezbollah’s ability to fight off Israel’s invasion.

2h ago11.12 EDT

Iran made no effort to rebuild uranium enrichment after its capabilities were destroyed in a June 2025 US-Israeli attack, the US intelligence chief testified Wednesday, contradicting president Donald Trump’s justifications for his ongoing war.

“As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,” Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said in prepared testimony to the Senate.

2h ago11.02 EDT

Gabbard: Iran government 'intact' despite heavy blows from US-Israeli bombing

Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, said Iran’s government has suffered heavy blows in the US-Israeli military campaign but that it remains “intact”.

The US intelligence community “assesses the regime in Iran to be intact but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities,” she told a US Senate hearing.

She said that if Iran’s leadership survived the war it would begin a years-long effort to rebuild its missile and drone programmes.

Israel strike on Iranian gas field coordinated with US – report

Israel’s strike against Iran’s South Pars gas field was coordinated with and approved by the Trump administration, the American news website Axios reported, citing two senior Israeli officials.

The report says a US defence official also confirmed the claim.

The offshore gas field in the Persian Gulf, which Iran shares with Qatar, is the largest such facility in the world. Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesman, Majed Al Ansari, described the targeting of the field — an extension of Qatar’s North Field — as a “dangerous and irresponsible step”.

2h ago10.34 EDT

Iran's president confirms intelligence minister Esmail Khatib killed

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, confirmed the country’s intelligence minister, Esmail Khatib, had been killed.

Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, said earlier today that Khatib was killed in a strike overnight.

Esmail Khatib. Photograph: Vahid Salemi/AP

“The cowardly assassination of my dear colleagues Esmail Khatib, Ali Larijani, and Aziz Nasirzadeh, along with some of their family members and accompanying team, has left us heartbroken,” Pezeshkian said in a post on X, mentioning the secretary of Iran’s supreme national security council and defence minister who were also killed in previous Israeli attacks.

3h ago10.12 EDT

Reuters news agency quoted a senior Iraqi official as saying Iranian gas flows to Iraq were suspended after an attack on Iran’s South Pars gas field.

Iran supplies between a third and 40% of Iraq’s gas and power needs, according to the news agency.

3h ago10.09 EDT

Qatar condemns Israel for attack on Iran’s South Pars natural gas field

Majed Al-Ansari, adviser to the Qatari prime minister and spokesperson for the foreign ministry, has blamed Israel for the reported strikes on facilities linked to Iran’s South Pars natural gas field, which Doha shares with Tehran.

He described it as “a dangerous and irresponsible step” that threatens global energy security.

In a statement posted on X, he said:

The Israeli targeting of facilities linked to Iran’s South Pars field, an extension of Qatar’s North Field, is a dangerous & irresponsible step amid the current military escalation in the region.

Targeting energy infrastructure constitutes a threat to global energy security, as well as to the peoples of the region & its environment.

We reiterate, as we have repeatedly emphasised, the necessity of avoiding the targeting of vital facilities. We call on all parties to exercise restraint, adhere to international law, & work toward de-escalation in a manner that preserves the security & stability of the region.

3h ago09.54 EDT

Thousands of Iranians are attending a funeral ceremony held for Iran’s supreme national security council secretary Ali Larijani and Basij commander Gholam Reza Soleimani in Tehran.

Large crowds are at the ceremony, which also honoured 84 Iranian navy personnel who lost their lives in the US-Israeli attacks.

Here are some images:

Thousands of Iranians attend a funeral ceremony held for Iran’s supreme national security council secretary Ali Larijani and Basij commander Gholam Reza Soleimani affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Tehran. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

The funeral procession was held at Enghelab Square. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

People wave Iranian flags at the funeral procession. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

3h ago09.41 EDT

Russia on Wednesday condemned the killing of Iranian security chief Ali Larijani, after ally Tehran vowed retaliation for his death in an Israeli airstrike.

Larijani had met Russian president Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin in January, at a time when US navy ships were heading towards Iran ahead of the US-Israeli air campaign launched at the end of February.

“We firmly condemn actions aimed at harming the health and, even more, the killing of the leadership of sovereign and independent Iran. We condemn such actions,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in a daily briefing.

Moscow is a close ally of Iran and has condemned the US and Israeli attacks, which Tehran has responded to with a barrage of missile and drone strikes on US allies across the Gulf.

3h ago09.23 EDT

Iran’s revolutionary guards issued evacuation warnings on Wednesday for several oil facilities across Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar, Iranian state media reported.

It comes as Qatar said that Israel’s targeting of an Iran gas facility was “dangerous and irresponsible”.

4h ago08.59 EDT

Summary of developments so far

• Israel has claimed Iran’s intelligence minister, Esmail Khatib, was killed in a strike overnight. There has been no comment from Iran on Khatib’s reported assassination but it would be the latest in a string of Israeli strikes that have killed senior Iranian leaders.

• The Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, said the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had authorised the military “to assassinate any senior Iranian official ... without the need for additional approval”. He added that “significant surprises” are expected today as the “intensity of the strikes in Iran is increasing”.

• It comes a day after Iran confirmed the deaths of its security chief, Ali Larijani, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Basij paramilitary force commander Gholamreza Soleimani. Iranian media reported that a funeral procession for both men will take place today in Tehran.

• At least 12 people were killed in Israeli strikes in central Beirut, according to the Lebanese health ministry. News agencies reported four airstrikes over an eight-hour period this morning in a densely populated area within walking distance of the city centre and headquarters of the Lebanese government. The Israeli military said it had completed an overnight wave of strikes targeting Hezbollah infrastructure.

• The Israeli military said it will begin attacking bridges across the Litani river in southern Lebanon as it once again ordered people to flee north. An Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson said the military was carrying out the bombing to prevent Hezbollah from moving reinforcements and combat equipment to areas where Israeli forces are operating.

• Iran launched an attack on an airbase in the UAE where Australian soldiers are stationed, the Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said. An Iranian projectile hit a road just outside the Al Minhad base, which hosts more than 100 Australian military personnel. Albanese confirmed that no Australian personnel were injured.

• Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said the global repercussions of the Middle East war “will hit all”, suggesting more western officials should push back against the conflict.

• In an interview with Al Jazeera, Araghchi also said that Iran’s stance against the development of nuclear weapons would not significantly change.

4h ago08.59 EDT

US-Israeli strikes hit Iranian gas facility in Bushehr province - reports

Iranian state media reported that US and Israeli strikes have hit Iran’s offshore South Pars natural gas field in the southern Bushehr province.

South Pars, the world’s largest natural gas field, is shared between Iran and Qatar in the Persian Gulf.

It was not immediately clear if Israel or the US had carried out the attack and neither have commented on the reported strikes. If confirmed it would mark a significant escalation of US and Israeli attacks against Iranian energy infrastructure.

4h ago08.38 EDT

The UAE has intercepted 327 ballistic missiles, 15 cruise missiles and nearly 1,700 drones from Iran since the war began, the country’s defence ministry said.

The attacks have killed eight people, including two members of the armed forces and six foreign nationals, the ministry added. A further 158 people of various nationalities have been injured.

The ministry said it had intercepted 13 ballistic missile and 27 drone attacks just today.

5h ago08.13 EDT

‘We want change but not like this’: Iranians describe daily life under air attack

A picture essay by the Guardian’s Stefanie Glinski and photographer Mohammad Mohsenifar illustrates the daily struggles of Iranians in Tehran who are trying to stay safe from the bombing as the war stretches into a third week.

A burning oil depot in the distance after an airstrike on 8 March. Photograph: Mohammad Mohsenifar

Middle East crisis live: Israel strike on Iranian gas field reportedly coordinated with US; Tehran confirms intelligence minister killed