And Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency is now reporting several explosions in Bampur and Chabahar in southern Iran. The exact location of these explosions was not immediately clear.
Top House Democrats split on Tuesday over a proposal to block aid for Israel’s military, with two of the party’s highest-ranking lawmakers saying they will oppose the effort while the chair of the progressive caucus encouraged his colleagues to back the defunding. The debate over an amendment introduced by Republican congressman Thomas Massie to halt $3.3bn in aid for Israel – the majority of which would go to its military – comes as Democrats grapple with a rebellion among their voters over the party’s support for the Middle Eastern ally, which has fueled the defeats of a series of congressional incumbents in recent primaries. The proposed amendment would affect legislation funding the state department and related agencies for the coming fiscal year, which the House of Representatives is expected to vote on this week. House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries circulated a letter among Democrats saying he would vote against Massie’s provision, the New York Times reported, calling it “overly broad”. He warned the amendment could cut off funds for humanitarian aid programs and complicate efforts to counter militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The minority leader’s office did not respond to a request for comment. “In my view, there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government,” Jeffries wrote. He also accused the House’s Republican leaders of “trying to weaponize an amendment they do not support for nakedly partisan reasons”. However, he said, he would not launch a formal effort to sway his party’s vote, citing “the strongly held views throughout the caucus in this important area of foreign policy”. Jeffries was joined by Pete Aguilar, the third-highest-ranking House Democrat, who told a press conference: “It’s clear that the Netanyahu administration has done everything they can to isolate Israel, and we need to ensure that we are building more friends in the region, not having fewer.” In a letter to members of the congressional progressive caucus obtained by the Guardian, its chair, Greg Casar, said he would vote yes on the amendment, and encouraged his colleagues to join him. “The American people are crying out for an end to US tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military,” he wrote. Nodding to the losses of three Democratic incumbents in recent primaries to candidates who vowed to take a hard line on Israel and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, Casar said: “The Democratic party needs a new approach to Israel and Palestine. “I hope you will join me in beginning that process by voting yes on this amendment.” Joe Biden’s support for Israel following the 7 October attack rocked his aborted bid for a second term, and has haunted some Democratic incumbents who sought re-election this year. In Colorado, the longtime congresswoman Diana DeGette last month lost her party’s nomination to Democratic socialist Melat Kiros, while in New York, incumbents Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat fell to democratic socialist primary challengers who criticized their stance on Israel. The issue has loomed large in Missouri, where freshman representative Wesley Bell is facing a challenge in the Democratic primary from Cori Bush, the former congresswoman he ousted in 2024 with the help of heavy spending from pro-Israel groups. It’s also a factor in the primary to replace the retiring Democratic senator Gary Peters in Michigan, where the former public health official Abdul El-Sayed has criticized his opponent Haley Stevens for her support of Israel. Jeffries and Aguilar signaled their own support for the US rethinking its approach to Israel and Netanyahu, whose government has faced accusations of genocide from international commissions over its incursion into Gaza following the 7 October attacks. In his letter, Jeffries called for “a major reset” in relations between the two countries based on two principles: a continued US commitment to Israel’s right to exist and the creation of a Palestinian state. With a 10-year memorandum of understanding signed under Barack Obama with Israel soon to expire, Jeffries wrote that the next agreement should “strictly adhere to our human rights laws and values” and acknowledge Israel’s ability to afford its own weapons. Aguilar acknowledged to reporters that “there needs to be a change in the relationship moving forward with Israel” but downplayed the impact on his strategy of the views of lawmakers who may win election in November. “We’re not thinking about what a Democratic candidate is going to to say in December after they’re sworn in … that’s not part of the calculus,” he said.
A US chain’s plan to sell its version of Mexican food to Mexicans with a first branch south of the border has prompted bemusement, skepticism and anger among local people. Chipotle Mexican Grill, known for its customisable burritos, tacos and bowls, has more than 4,000 locations worldwide and announced on Tuesday that it was expanding into Mexico in what it described as a significant milestone. The first restaurant will open on Thursday in the upmarket neighbourhood of San Pedro Garza García in the city of Monterrey in the northern state of Nuevo León. Many social media users expressed excitement at the prospect of Chipotle’s arrival in Mexico, but others were less than impressed. “Bold move selling Mexico a corporate version of Mexico,” wrote one user on X. “Next up, Panda Express opening its first mainland China location,” wrote another, referring to the US Chinese fast-food chain. “Let’s support what’s local,” wrote one user on Instagram. “The earnings of Chipotle will go to the USA, they won’t stay in Mexico. On the other hand, if you buy from a local neighbourhood fonda the money goes toward local taxes and generates further economic impact for a circular economy.” “It’s like the dog teaching a duck to fly!” another said. “Yummi mexican food made by gringos … said no one ever!” wrote one user on Facebook. Some predicted that Chipotle would suffer the same fate as other US fast-food chains that have failed to make it in the countries that inspired their cuisine. Taco Bell has twice tried to launch in Mexico, but closed all of its restaurants there in 2010. It opened its first restaurant in Monterrey in 2007, complete with french fries on the menu. Marco Fragoso, a local office worker, told the Associated Press at the time: “They’re not tacos. They’re folded tostadas. They’re very ugly.” The philosopher and journalist Carlos Monsívais described Taco Bell’s attempt to expand into Mexico as “like bringing ice to the Arctic”. Starbucks has been somewhat more successful in Italy, launching its first outlet in a former post office in 2018. Domino’s Pizza, however, crashed out of Italy after seven years in 2022, when its local franchise filed for bankruptcy and closed all of its 29 restaurants. Inés Carrasco, who writes the blog Cronicas de San Pedro, said Chipotle might appeal to people who embrace Tex-Mex food because of the city’s proximity to the US, but that history did not bode well for it. “US franchises don’t succeed in Monterrey,” Carraso said. “Just because one opens doesn’t mean it will do well – Jack in the Box and who knows how many others have flopped in Nuevo León. Some never even made it to Mexico City because they couldn’t cut it in Nuevo León.” Chipotle’s management, however, said it was confident the chain would find a market south of the border. “We are entering Mexico with deep respect for the country’s culinary heritage and a commitment to delivering the Chipotle experience with excellence,” its chief executive, Scott Boatwright, said in a statement. Its chief business development officer, Nate Lawson, said: “This first location will serve as an important proof-of-concept, giving us the opportunity to better understand local consumer preferences as we thoughtfully grow in Mexico.” Working in partnership with the Mexican restaurant operator Alsea, Chipotle intends to opening more restaurants in Nuevo León and expand into Mexico City next year. “We had been pursuing Chipotle for at least five or six years,” Alsea’s chief executive, Christian Guirría, told the local news outlet Expansión. “I don’t know if we wore them down or won them over, but ultimately, we were very fortunate to secure the franchise for Mexico.” As well as the US, the company already has restaurants in Canada, the UK, France and Germany. It is also planning to enter the Asian market, with restaurants scheduled to open in South Korea this year and Singapore early next year.
Donald Trump has backed down from a threat that ships would have to pay a 20% fee to the US for “security” in the strait of Hormuz, replacing it with what he described as investment and trade deals with Gulf Arab states as US and Iranian airstrikes resumed for a third day. The US president said he had decided to scrap the toll “based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership”, and touted “massive” investments, just five hours before the toll was due to come into effect. He said the US would continue to blockade Iranian ports. He said in remarks as he met the Iraqi prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi, in the White House that he did not believe anybody should charge a fee “but at the same time, it’s not fair that we’re protecting this strait for the entire world”. The abrupt U-turn came after three days of US strikes and Iranian retaliation on US allies in the Middle East, in the fiercest exchanges in weeks which threatened to pull the region back into all-out war. It further dimmed prospects for negotiations meant to lead to a permanent truce. The Israeli prime minster, Benjamin Netanyahu, also warned Iran against striking it, threatening a powerful counterstrike. “I will say it to the leaders of Iran: do not count on things remaining quiet if you attack us,” Netanyahu said at a conference in Dimona, southern Israel. “The days are over when someone strikes us and we don’t hit back with a decisive blow.” The US military launched strikes on Iran starting early on Tuesday morning and continuing until midday. The US military said its five-hour operation early on Tuesday hit targets across Iran, including in the port cities of Bushehr and Bandar Abbas. It shared videos of strikes that it said were meant to “degrade Iran’s ability to attack commercial shipping”. More explosions were heard around noon on Tuesday west of Bandar Abbas, as well as in Bushehr and Choghadak, according to Iranian state TV. Blasts were also heard later on Tuesday on the Iranian island of Qeshm near the strait of Hormuz. Iran targeted Bahrain, which houses the US Navy’s fifth fleet; Jordan, which hosts US air force assets; and two tankers associated with the United Arab Emirates in the strait of Hormuz. Kuwait’s army also reported intercepting “hostile” projectiles on Tuesday evening. Bahrain said it had intercepted several of the attacks and accused Iran of targeting civilians after explosions were heard in its capital, Manama. Jordan said it intercepted four missiles from Iran. The attacks are a significant block to efforts to reopen the strait. Iran in effect closed it during the four-month war with the US, and the US imposed a naval blockade of Iranian ships in response. A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the two countries was supposed to reopen the strait but flares in violence and breakdowns in negotiations have hindered free navigation in the waterway. The two countries are now almost halfway through the 60-day period set out by the MoU for negotiations to reach a final truce, making little progress on key matters such as the strait, Iran’s disputed nuclear programme and regional issues. On Monday, Trump had said the US would control the strait and charge ships up to a 20% toll for safe passage, which would have been a reversal of the previous US position that no country was allowed to charge tolls through the international waterway under the rules of freedom of navigation. Analysts have said that reopening the strait by force would require a military campaign involving tens of thousands of US troops. US attacks on Iran have killed at least 28 people since last week, according to a tally by Agence France-Presse. The Indian foreign ministry meanwhile said it was lodging a strong protest with Iran and summoned its deputy ambassador after one Indian seafarer was killed and 10 other Indians were seriously wounded by Iranian attacks on two tankers. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency issued a warning for airlines on Tuesday, telling them to avoid flying over the airspace of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and above the Gulf of Oman. It said “unpredictable military developments” created a risk to civil flights. Iran has insisted the US will have no role in the strait. Its foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Tehran would be the guardian of the strait “for ever”. On Trump’s threat, Araghchi said on X: “20% is of course too much. We will be fair.” The price of crude oil rose to a four-week high of more than $86 a barrel on Tuesday but prices are still below their peak during the war, when they hit nearly $120 a barrel. Lebanese and Israeli delegations were due to meet in Rome on Tuesday to continue US-mediated negotiations. Lebanon is seeking an Israeli withdrawal from the more than 600 sq km of the country that it occupies, though hopes for a swift withdrawal were low. Last month Lebanon and Israel announced they had reached a “framework agreement” under which Israeli troops would withdraw from “pilot areas” in south Lebanon. The Lebanese army would then enter those areas, with the promise that they would prevent Hezbollah from returning and continue to dismantle the armed group’s infrastructure there. Israel’s foreign minister, Gideon Saar, told reporters in Tel Aviv on Tuesday that it was ready to move forward in implementing two pilot zones, and that the framework agreement was “the only way forward”. The office of the Lebanese president, Joseph Aoun, said in a statement on Monday that he had tasked the Lebanese delegation to demand the immediate start of Israeli withdrawal from the two pilot zones before any other discussions were held. A US military delegation was in Lebanon over the weekend to discuss the pilot zone plan in detail, according to Reuters. The negotiations are between the Lebanese government and Israel. Hezbollah is not a party to the talks. Hezbollah has repeatedly called on the government to stop the talks, framing the direct negotiations as a surrender. It is unclear how agreements from the talks would be implemented on the ground without Hezbollah’s cooperation.
Pippa Crerar’s focus on action is right (Burnham’s apology over Gaza marks ‘reset moment’ as Labour seeks to win back progressive voters, 9 July). May we add one element: the law. Two years ago, the international court of justice advised that the 1967 occupation of Palestine is unlawful. Keir Starmer worked to uphold international law on Ukraine. Rightly, he recognised the state of Palestine alongside Israel, and confirmed that the occupation is unlawful. Consequences should follow, but we still await the government’s assessment of the ICJ opinion. Steps to end the occupation are needed. No state that values the decisions of UN bodies should prolong it. Our country needs a rules-based international order. The UK relies on due process for the conduct of international affairs. It is in the UK’s interest to challenge the “might is right” fallacy. The rule of law helps keep us safe, when made effective – domestically and internationally. Lord Denning observed that “the rules of international law … do form part of our English law”. The two are intertwined. Trade in goods and services with illegal settlements prolongs the occupation. Israel derives economic benefit from stolen land. The government should ban settlement trade, including financial services. The measures taken against Russia should apply to Israel, which is breaking the same laws. Israel should be held to account for ethnic cleansing and worse in Gaza and the West Bank. Diplomacy ignoring the law is ill-advised. The UN security council – including the UK – has outsourced Gaza to the Board of Peace, prolonging the suffering of 2 million Palestinians. There is a duty to protect civilians. Israel does the opposite. As the archbishop of Canterbury said, we must not look away. Nor do words suffice. The government should act with partners to secure unrestricted access for food, medicines and temporary accommodation – with consequences if access is denied. The October 2025 “ceasefire” has not ended the violence, with no access for MPs and international journalists. Foes and friends are breaking laws which help keep us safe. The UK government’s inconsistency undermines the laws on which we rely. Vincent Fean Former consul-general, Jerusalem Helena Kennedy KC Labour, House of Lords John Kerr Crossbencher, House of Lords and former permanent secretary, Foreign Office Dominic Grieve KC Peter Hain Labour, House of Lords Jeremy Greenstock Former ambassador to the UN Emyr Jones Parry Former ambassador to the UN David Manning Former ambassador to the US William Patey Former ambassador to Afghanistan
A spokesperson for the EU has pushed back against the Trump administration’s assertion that the international criminal court poses a threat to US sovereignty, a day after the US government said it would work to “systematically disable” a global tribunal that seeks to prosecute the perpetrators of the world’s gravest crimes. Anouar El Anouni, an EU spokesperson, said on Tuesday: “We stand firm in our support for the international criminal court (ICC). Attacks or threats against the court, elected officials, personnel or those cooperating with the court are simply not acceptable.” El Anouni pointed to the court’s role in pursuing the perpetrators of some of the world’s gravest crimes, from genocide to war crimes. He said: “Let’s also recall that the ICC does not target sovereign states, nor does it constitute a threat to their sovereignty.” Instead, he added, it “exercises jurisdiction over individuals, perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community”. Since Donald Trump returned to power last year, his administration has steadily worked to hobble The Hague-based court. So far, 11 of the court’s officials – including the chief prosecutor and eight judges – have been placed under US sanctions, leaving them grappling with cancelled credit cards, Amazon and Google accounts, as well as US travel bans. Monday’s announcement, however, marked a dramatic escalation. In a video published on Monday, Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, claimed that the court “threatens every aspect of our political and legal system”. In an accompanying op-ed, he invoked images of US border patrol agents and elected leaders being “dragged before an international court” and tried by judges from around the world. The US state department said in a statement that the campaign against the court would take a “wide range of actions”, including potentially pressuring other nations to withdraw from the ICC and “increased scrutiny” of the countries that refuse to do so while relying on US assistance. Countries that could be affected by these measures include Ukraine, where the ICC launched an investigation in 2022 into possible war crimes following Russia’s invasion. Legal experts described Rubio’s remarks as a mischaracterisation of the tribunal’s powers. The court can investigate alleged crimes committed in countries that have signed up to it, or crimes committed by citizens of those countries. It can also investigate cases referred by the UN security council, or where a country not signed up agrees to let it act. But the court is only supposed to step in when a country cannot or will not investigate the crimes itself. The US has not signed up to the court. For US citizens abroad, chances are slim of being put on trial by the court, as about 100 countries have signed agreements with the US to refrain from surrendering Americans to the court. Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said: “The ICC is not claiming jurisdiction over conduct in the United States. Rubio is dressing up his quest for impunity for American war crimes under the label of national sovereignty, which ignores the sovereign right of other nations to invoke the ICC for crimes committed on their territory.” A former senior US government sanctions official suggested that the Trump administration was looking to curtail the possibility of investigations into its actions. “It gives you the sense that this is a pre-emptive campaign against any action the ICC might be considering vis-a-vis Venezuela or elsewhere abroad,” the official said. This sense was reinforced by Rubio, who, in his op-ed, cited calls from activists and others for the court to prosecute the Trump administration for actions such as the deportation of migrants or US strikes on boats that officials have claimed are carrying narcotics. Roth went further, citing concerns that the Trump administration could also be looking to ward off scrutiny for future actions. He said: “Trump wants to be able to commit war crimes on the territory of countries that have accepted the court’s jurisdiction – that’s what this is about.”
The number of young men applying to be conscientious objectors and refuse armed military service in Germany has risen sharply this year, undermining a drive by Berlin to create Europe’s strongest conventional army and deter the Russian threat. More people had applied to exclude themselves from service on religious or moral grounds in the first half of 2026 than in the whole of last year, according to figures provided by the government on Tuesday. For the period to 30 June, the federal office of family affairs and civil society functions, which rules on such requests, received 5,862 applications, a spokesperson said, confirming a report by the RND media group. This compared with 3,879 applications in the whole of 2025 and 2,249 in 2024. The federal office had previously reported that 2,667 of the requests were granted this year as of the end of May. Last year 2,830 were approved. Germany’s constitution guarantees the right of conscientious objection, stating: “No one shall be compelled against their conscience to perform military service involving the use of arms.” The move to apply for objector status is pre-emptive, since Germany has no active draft. Instead, in an attempt to revamp the country’s depleted military, the government this year required all German men from the age of 18 to complete a form indicating their readiness to serve and undergo a medical examination. Women are being encouraged to volunteer to serve in the military but are not obliged to participate in the selection process under the plan, which was introduced by the popular defence minister, Boris Pistorius of the Social Democrats. The co-ruling conservative Christian Union parties (CDU/CSU) said if Pistorius failed to make sufficient progress towards a goal of having 260,000 active volunteer soldiers by 2035, conscription – suspended since 2011 – could be resumed. Such a step would require further legislation. In 2011, 4,348 people applied for conscientious objector status. The rise this year was seen as having been triggered by the new “conscription lite” policy that went into effect on 1 January, as well as concerns about potential military involvement in security hotspots such as the strait of Hormuz and a peacekeeping operation in postwar Ukraine. Germany, which like many western countries dramatically slashed its military after the cold war, has about 186,000 active soldiers and severe capability gaps that Berlin is scrambling to address. Mounting geopolitical instability, the threat from Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine and pressure from Donald Trump have nudged Germany to abandon its postwar pacifism in favour of a stronger military footing. Friedrich Merz, the chancellor, took office last year pledging to turn Germany’s armed forces, or Bundeswehr, into “Europe’s strongest conventional army”. Applicants for conscientious objector status are required to submit to the Bundeswehr a short letter of intent with a personal signature, a CV and a personal statement setting out their reasons for refusing armed service. While the rise in applicants made headlines in Germany, the number of people seeking to reverse their previously granted conscientious objector status is reportedly increasing as well. The Neue Osnabrücker newspaper reported in April that 233 people had opted to waive their recognised right to refuse service in the first quarter of 2026, after 781 did so in the whole of 2025. Those granted conscientious objector status could be called up for civilian duties in a security emergency. Polls indicate support in Germany for rearmament and replenishing the military’s ranks. However, thousands of young people have staged nationwide protests and “school strikes” against the policy this year, saying the government is trying to turn them into “cannon fodder”.