News related to
attack

Israeli defence minister Israel Katz declared late on 24 June that he had ordered the Israel Defence Forces to resume “high‑intensity operations” against regime targets in central Tehran. The announcement followed allegations that Iran had launched missiles into Israeli territory, in what Tel Aviv described as a blatant breach of a United States‑mediated ceasefire unveiled just hours earlier by President Donald Trump.

Trump had proclaimed a “complete and total ceasefire” on Truth Social, explaining that Iran would halt strikes first, followed by Israel, in a phased arrangement ending after 24 hours. Within three hours of that declaration, Israel alleged that Iran launched missiles toward its southern regions, prompting Katz’s directive to strike key Iranian infrastructure.

Contradicting Israel’s account, Tehran’s ISNA student news agency denied firing any missiles post‑ceasefire. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi had earlier stated that Tehran would cease retaliatory actions—conditional on Israel halting operations by 04:00 Tehran time, a condition that purportedly lapsed minutes before hostilities were to pause.

President Trump, addressing the situation on social media, urged both nations to honour the agreement and warned against any violations, offering his oversight as guarantor of the pledge. His announcement followed the deployment of U.S. B‑2 bombers striking three Iranian nuclear sites, and a symbolic retaliatory missile strike from Iran against a U.S. base in Qatar—strikes reportedly calibrated to minimise escalation.

Despite conflicting claims, available evidence indicates a spike in missile exchanges. According to Reuters, Israel’s southern city of Beersheba was hit, resulting in at least four fatalities, while various townships experienced temporary power outages after sirens sounded across the region as Iranian missiles streaked overhead.

Tehran mourned significant civilian losses, with over 10 Israelis killed and more than 250 injured during Iran’s earlier onslaught, which included bombardments on central and southern Israeli regions. Meanwhile, Israel took credit for eliminating senior Iranian military personnel and striking strategic nuclear and missile infrastructure; Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated Israel’s success in degrading what he described as a dual existential threat posed by Iran’s capabilities.

Regionally, Qatar responded strongly, summoning Iran’s ambassador and condemning the attack on U.S. forces at Al Udeid Air Base as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Saudi Arabia expressed hope that all parties would uphold the ceasefire and de‑escalate.

International markets reacted positively to the ceasefire’s initial announcement. Oil prices dropped, and equities rallied on optimism that the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz might ease—although the renewed strikes quickly revived fears of a wider conflagration.

Experts scrutinise the long‑term viability of the truce. Some analysts suggest installation damage to Iran’s nuclear programme may be reversible, with Iran’s leadership determined to rebuild. Others view the U.S. use of bunker‑buster bombs and Israel’s strategic targeting of Iranian deterrents as potential deterrents that may delay a rapid resurgence.

On the political front, Trump is leveraging the declared ceasefire as a foreign‑policy milestone ahead of an imminent NATO summit. Netanyahu affirmed Israel would respond forcefully to any violations. Tehran warned that its military exercise would persist unless the bombing ended, contending that it acted to “punish Israel for its aggression until the very last minute”.

As global attention turns to negotiations, Qatar’s mediation role and U.S. involvement loom large. The deal remains tentative, with both Israel and Iran accusing each other of breaking terms, and uncertainty surrounding whether Trump’s phased ceasefire timeline will endure.

Donald Trump proclaimed a full ceasefire between Israel and Iran on Monday, marking what he described as the end of a “12‑day war” that forced millions from Tehran and sparked grave fears of escalation. He posted on Truth Social that Iran would halt its operations at midnight ET, followed by Israel twelve hours later, culminating in a 24‑hour cessation of hostilities.

Trump touted the move as a diplomatic breakthrough, congratulating “both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end” the conflict. He asserted that the agreement was brokered in discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu and through U.S. envoys in dialogue with Tehran, with Qatar playing a key intermediary role.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, echoed that Tehran’s forces stood down at 4 a.m. Tehran time if Israel ceased its attacks by then, though he clarified that a final decision on halting military operations was pending. Israel’s military has yet to formally acknowledge the ceasefire, and missile alerts and strikes were still reported over Tel Aviv, Beersheba and the Golan Heights in the hours following the announcement.

The conflict began on 13 June when Israel launched airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, including sites near Natanz, Isfahan and Tehran. That response, which Israeli authorities described as necessary to counter an alleged Iranian march towards nuclear weapons capability, included the destruction of centrifuge material and the deaths of senior Iranian military figures and nuclear scientists. Iran retaliated with waves of missiles and drones aimed at Israeli territory; Israel intercepted many of them, but civilian casualties were reported in Beersheba and Tel Aviv.

The conflict widened when the United States joined with bunker‑buster strikes on Iranian underground nuclear facilities over the weekend, prompting Iran to retaliate by targeting the U.S. air base at Al Udeid in Qatar. The attack caused no casualties, and Trump later thanked Iran for the “early notice,” calling it a “very weak response”.

Though Trump dismissed European diplomatic efforts as ineffective, he warned that U.S. involvement remained a distinct possibility if Iran escalated further, positioning American strikes solely against nuclear targets. Internal Israeli pressure also rose; Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly instructed ministers to refrain from public commentary as military activity approached a pause.

Humanitarian fallout during this period has been acute. Over 650 Iranians have died, according to Iranian health data, including civilians, and over 200 Israeli military and civilian fatalities have been reported. Tehran saw large-scale evacuations as power and internet access faltered.

International bodies raised alarms over the bombardment of nuclear facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency cautioned against striking enrichment sites due to risks of radiological contamination. Legal experts also voiced concerns that the strikes on civilian infrastructure—including hospitals and residential neighborhoods—could constitute violations under international humanitarian law.

Despite the ceasefire declaration, uncertainty remains. Iran’s foreign minister warned that if Israeli attacks persisted past 4 a.m. Tehran time, hostilities could resume. Similarly, Israeli officials reported continued launcher of missiles from Iran, demonstrating that the ceasefire may be fragile.

Regional and global reactions have been varied. Qatar’s prime minister was credited with facilitating Iran’s acceptance of the U.S.-proposed ceasefire. European negotiators, meanwhile, expressed frustration that efforts in Geneva had produced little movement before hostilities intensified. Both Russia and China urged restraint and urged full de‑escalation.

Markets responded positively to the ceasefire announcement, reflecting investor hopes for regional stability, yet the humanitarian toll and legal implications—the destruction of nuclear infrastructure, civilian casualties, and potential violations of international law—leave an ambiguous legacy for a war that surged in intensity over just under two weeks. The path ahead now hinges on whether both nations uphold the phased withdrawal and open room for diplomatic resolution amid deep mistrust.

Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, hosting around 10,000 U.S. and allied personnel, was struck on 23 June 2025 by a volley of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles launched by Iran in apparent retaliation for American airstrikes on its nuclear facilities. Qatar’s air defences intercepted the incoming salvo, reported as six missiles by Iran and fourteen by U.S. sources, with no casualties or significant damage recorded.

Tehran described the strike as a calibrated response, matching the number of missiles to bombs used in the U.S. assault on Natanz, Fordow and Esfahan, suggesting a bid to avoid civilian harm. Iranian state media dubbed the action “Operation Glad Tidings of Victory” and stressed it was carried out away from populated areas. U.S. President Donald Trump, characterising the barrage as “very weak,” acknowledged that Iran provided advance notice, enabling effective interception and preventing casualties.

Qatar issued a forceful denunciation, condemning the barrage as a “flagrant violation” of its sovereignty and international law. Dr Majed bin Mohammed Al Ansari, spokesperson for Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, warned that the country reserves the right to respond proportionally and reiterated calls for a return to genuine diplomacy. Qatar Airways temporarily suspended flights amid the airspace closure, and India’s embassy in Doha advised nationals to remain cautious amid the unfolding tensions.

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia also condemned the violence. The UAE described the missiles as a breach of Qatari sovereignty and called for an immediate halt to military escalation. Riyadh echoed this stance, expressing full support for Qatar and branding the strike “unjustifiable,” warning of broader destabilisation. The Arab League, Jordan, Bahrain and Oman joined the chorus, denouncing the attack and urging restraint.

Western capitals emphasised caution. France and Germany condemned the missile salvo but underscored the necessity of diplomacy. The United Nations and European Union called for urgent de-escalatory measures and a return to negotiations, with António Guterres warning of the risk of “regional conflagration”. Beijing and Moscow echoed appeals for a diplomatic resolution.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that Iran would not succumb to aggression and that its missile barrage equalled the U.S. assault. Tehran also hinted at further measures if U.S. actions persist. Meanwhile, Israel unleashed its most extensive air campaign yet on Tehran, striking sites including Evin Prison and Fordow enrichment facility.

The strikes on Qatar and also U.S. bases in Iraq—though unconfirmed beyond Qatar—have prompted airspace closures over Gulf nations including Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE. Commercial carriers like IndiGo and Air India Express issued advisories or rerouted flights, contributing to widening disruptions in travel.

Global financial markets reacted nervously, with oil prices briefly spiking over fears of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for global energy shipments. The International Atomic Energy Agency, meanwhile, voiced anxiety about the security of Iran’s nuclear sites following the U.S. bombardment.

Analysts suggest Iran’s approach was designed to recalibrate the balance of deterrence without provoking full-scale war. The matched missile count, pre-warning, and focus on a remote military target indicate a calculated effort to signal strength while avoiding mass casualties.

Diplomats across Europe, the U.N. and the Gulf pressed for an immediate halt to further strikes and for major powers to step up mediation. Qatar, a longstanding facilitator of regional talks, is uniquely positioned to spearhead efforts. Both Iran and the U.S. have acknowledged potential for dialogue: Trump spoke of the prospect of “peace and harmony,” echoing Tehran’s assertions that the strike completed its “symbolic” objectives.

But with tensions now inflamed between Iran, Israel and the U.S., and Gulf states on alert, diplomatic channels face a critical juncture. Any miscalculation could unleash renewed conflict across the region.

U.S. military jets attacked three uranium-enrichment facilities in Iran—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—after President Trump authorised a precision bombing campaign targeting underground shafts, marking a significant escalation in efforts to curb Tehran’s atomic ambitions. Trump asserted that the installations were “totally obliterated” following deployment of B‑2 stealth bombers armed with GBU‑57 bunker‑buster munitions. Pentagon officials confirmed this was the first operational use of Massive Ordnance Penetrators.

Satellite imagery shows craters at Fordow and Natanz, alongside signs of collapsed tunnel entrances and surface damage. Yet analysts caution that subterranean caverns may remain intact. One crater at Natanz measured approximately 5.5 metres across, and a large support structure at Fordow appeared untouched. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported no detectable increase in off‑site radiation but acknowledges an inability to evaluate underground facility damage.

Destruction of declared nuclear infrastructure may impair Iran’s enrichment capabilities temporarily, but it adds complexity to monitoring efforts. The strikes have disrupted IAEA inspectors’ routine inspections and scattered environmental samples, weakening the agency’s ability to conduct forensic analysis. Former IAEA official Robert Kelley warned that bomb‑strewn sites render isotopic sampling nearly impossible, complicating accurate uranium accounting.

On diplomatic and military fronts, the strikes have triggered serious concern. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister characterised global tensions as “millimetres” from the brink of nuclear confrontation. Iran’s leadership, including foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, condemned the attacks as “lawless aggression,” and pledged proportionate retaliation. Iranian state media reported missile defence operations over Tehran and Karaj, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned U.S. bases in the region may face “regrettable responses”.

Allies have issued mixed reactions. Australian foreign minister Penny Wong backed the action as a move to prevent weaponisation, though she also called for a halt to hostilities and a return to diplomacy. In Washington, lawmakers are divided: some Republicans applaud the airstrikes, while Democratic leaders criticise the unilateral decision absent congressional authorisation.

Despite military claims of success, experts caution that bombing cannot permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. A 2025 Reuters analysis noted that even well-targeted airstrikes would likely result in only temporary delay, with underground facilities concealing critical components and technical expertise intact. The IAEA’s upcoming board meeting in Vienna is expected to address both the fissile-material disruption and the challenge of rebuilding effective verification.

Iran had responded to earlier IAEA censure by announcing a new enrichment site and upgrading centrifuges at Fordow, deepening concerns over progress toward weaponisation. By mid‑June, the agency confirmed that Iran held approximately 409 kg of 60 percent enriched uranium—enough for several warheads if further refined.

Military strategists believe that while Israel’s campaigns damaged above‑ground infrastructure, only the U.S. possessed the capability to strike buried facilities effectively. But even with advanced bunker‑busters, Fordow remains a tough target; Israel earlier claimed it could strike the site independently, though many experts doubted that it had the means to deliver sufficient penetration.

Operation “Midnight Hammer,” as it is reportedly codenamed, has bolstered military deterrence, yet it may harden Iran’s resolve. Observers warn that Tehran is likely to deepen its program underground, reduce transparency, and accelerate its nuclear pursuits outside of IAEA oversight.

Amid rising hostilities, diplomatic overtures remain faint. Iranian and U.S. envoys were scheduled to meet in Oman, while Araghchi was set to confer with Russian counterparts in Moscow. The IAEA board’s deliberations in Vienna may prove a critical venue for negotiating how to restore inspections, assess nuclear inventory, and potentially revive diplomacy.

Analysts stress that without sustained oversight, military strikes risk igniting an arms race. Uranium shields buried deeper, veiled by bomb damage, could reemerge in new sites—potentially accelerating forceful advances outside the scrutiny of Western intelligence.

UAE authorities have successfully airlifted both citizens and expatriate residents from Iran amid mounting regional tensions stemming from the ongoing Israel–Iran conflict. These evacuation flights were carried out in full coordination with Iranian officials, who provided necessary transit clearances and logistical assistance, according to the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

Passengers greeted on arrival in Abu Dhabi included Emirati nationals and resident visa holders. Some were visibly emotional—footage released by WAM showed arrivals embracing airport staff, while others knelt in gratitude upon disembarking. UAE officials confirmed that all evacuees underwent health screening and security checks; no medical emergencies were reported during the operation.

The decision to evacuate was prompted by intensifying hostilities between Iran and Israel, which have resulted in reciprocal missile and drone strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Since 13 June, airspace closures across Iran and neighbouring countries have disrupted commercial flights, leaving many foreign nationals stranded.

While Tehran’s nuclear sites have been under attack, Tehran’s government issued public messages minimising panic, yet civilians promptly fled towards northern provinces, leading to fuel shortages, transport gridlocks, and relief operations along highways. Over 100,000 people are believed to have relocated internally by 15 June, while a few hundred foreign evacuees have used authorised border crossings to exit Iran.

UAE’s timely action reflects an expansion of its foreign crisis response capabilities, built through previous evacuations from conflict zones such as Ukraine, Sudan, and Afghanistan. Evacuating via a mix of chartered aircraft and government-operated flights, the UAE used carefully planned air routes to skirt high-risk regions.

Parallel efforts by Gulf neighbours highlight broader regional coordination. Bahrain, Oman and others secured safe passage for their own nationals via land and air corridors; Oman alone registered over 150 evacuees through Bandar Abbas and Iraq logistics networks. Countries including India, China, the US, Germany and Poland activated repatriation schemes—India’s “Operation Sindhu” successfully repatriated 110 nationals through Armenia by 18 June.

While evacuation pipelines opened, Dubai and Abu Dhabi remain operational, and companies across the Gulf are updating contingency plans amid concerns over possible spill‑over and disruptions to critical infrastructure. Risk advisory firms are reporting heightened demand for intelligence services, crisis preparedness, and staff security measures.

The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs has reiterated its call for diplomacy as the sole pathway to stability. Its continuous diplomatic outreach has involved deep engagement with international partners and a strong appeal to the UN Security Council to broker de‑escalation amid what it describes as “exceptional circumstances”.

The evacuation marks a rare cooperative moment between the UAE and Iran, whose bilateral relations have at times been strained. Yet Iranian authorities’ facilitation of access to airports and transit permissions demonstrated a mutual willingness to protect civilians from broader geopolitical fallout.

With all Gulf evacuations through this phase concluded, attention now turns to whether diplomatic avenues will succeed in preventing further civilian displacement. Businesses and governments remain on alert, reinforcing emergency protocols and intelligence monitoring systems to safeguard personnel and operations in the face of uncertainty.

Oil markets swung sharply following the US Air Force’s striking of Iran’s Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear facilities on 21 June, triggering a fresh wave of geopolitical risk. Brent crude futures jumped over 11 per cent earlier this week after Israeli attacks, and traders are now preparing for further price volatility once global trading resumes.

President Trump described the operation as a “spectacular military success” and warned that more targets await if Iran does not seek peace. The US employed six B‑2 bombers laden with GBU‑57 “bunker‑buster” bombs—ordnance only capable of penetrating Fordow‘s deep underground vaults. Natanz and Esfahan were also hit, reportedly using Tomahawks from submarines.

Market analysts warn that disruption to Iran’s 2.5 million barrels per day export capacity, plus the threat of a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, would lift risk premiums sharply. Oxford Economics estimates oil could reach $130 a barrel if Iran decides to close the Strait, sending inflation soaring.

Investors are preparing for turbulence in equities and a rush towards safe-haven assets like the US dollar and gold. Potomac River Capital’s CIO, Mark Spindel, warned of markets being “initially alarmed” with heightened volatility continuing until the extent of the damage is confirmed.

Global markets have seen mixed signals: while crude prices surged up to 18 per cent since Israel’s June 13 raids, equities such as the S&P 500 have remained relatively steady. Predicting a deeper sell-off may depend on whether Iran follows through with threats — including disrupting the Strait, leveraging regional proxies, or escalating cyber campaigns.

Iran’s official response has been defiant rather than conciliatory. Tehran’s Atomic Energy Organisation assures no radiation has been released, and lawmakers claim the damage is superficial and repairable. Iran’s foreign ministry has labelled the strikes “outrageous” and cautioned that the consequences will be “everlasting”.

Global leaders have voiced alarm. New Zealand’s foreign minister urged all parties to “de-escalate and return to diplomacy”, while Australia and Mexico emphasised restraint and dialogue. Venezuela and Cuba condemned the strikes as violations of international law, calling for immediate halt to military action.

Oil market specialist Saul Kavonic warns Brent could move towards $100 a barrel “depending on Iran’s retaliation”. While Saudi output increases may buffer short-term shortages, traders recognise that any direct counterstrike on Gulf tanker routes or infrastructure would compound risk.

The destruction of key nuclear enrichment sites may set back Iran’s nuclear programme temporarily. Yet experts caution that the regime’s scientific expertise cannot be fully neutralised and the damage might harden Tehran’s resolve to pursue a bomb. This may also hinder diplomatic engagement, as Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty and cease cooperation with the IAEA.

In financial hubs and oil centres from London to Shanghai, traders are reviewing risk models, stress-testing portfolios and hedging energy exposure. Asian markets, heavily reliant on Gulf crude, could face inflationary pressure if shipping routes are disrupted.

A key question now is whether the United States and its allies will pursue further strikes or shift to diplomatic pressure. Trump’s administration insists that Iran now has a binary choice: embrace peace or face further “precision” strikes. Critics warn that without congressional authorisation, deeper military involvement risks entangling the US in a long-term Middle East conflict.

Citigroup analysts warn that a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz could lift Brent crude prices to approximately $90 a barrel, although they expect any halt to shipping to be brief. They cite the strategic importance of the strait—through which nearly 20 million barrels per day flow—suggesting market reaction would be sharp but short-lived as global efforts would swiftly aim to reopen the passage.

Citigroup’s forecast is embedded in a wider reassessment of global oil dynamics amid escalating Middle East tensions, particularly stemming from the Israel‑Iran conflict. With around 3 million barrels per day of output at potential risk and Iran among OPEC’s top producers, disruptions—even temporary—could reverberate across the energy market. Citi’s base-case scenario projects Brent at $75–78 per barrel if approximately 1.1 million barrels daily of Iranian exports are affected.

A total 3 million bpd disruption, sustained over months, could even hit the $90 mark, Citi warns. Still, analysts emphasise that broader supply resilience, including increased output from non‑OPEC producers and reduced demand growth—due in part to slowing Chinese purchases—might temper a sustained rally.

Other leading financial institutions draw a similar line: Goldman Sachs and Barclays point to heightened geopolitical risk premiums, respectively estimating $10 and $15–20 per barrel add-ons if Iran’s exports are severely cut—a situation that could push prices above $100 in extreme scenarios. JPMorgan outlines a worst-case blockade of the Hormuz strait leading to a $120‑130 spike, though such events would likely be fleeting.

Analysts and experts stress that while short-term oil supply disruptions would sharply affect spot prices, structural market factors could offset prolonged volatility. OPEC has spare capacity; U.S. shale output remains nimble; and China has begun trimming its purchases as inventories fill, helping absorb supply shocks.

Geosphere Capital’s Arvind Sanger assesses a 25 percent likelihood of an actual tactical attack on critical infrastructure such as Kharg Island or Hormuz, but holds that there is a 75 percent chance hostilities do not directly impact supply chains. Shipping insurance and risk premiums are rising, though long‑term disruption remains unlikely.

Diplomatic signals, particularly from Washington playing a stabilising role in response to Iranian threats, may also help contain risks. Historical precedent—such as Rapid US naval deployments near the strait in 2008—reinforces the view that any attempt to close Hormuz by Tehran would quickly provoke international counter‑measures.

Market movements reflect this delicate balance. Brent futures recently climbed above $78 before easing to the low‑to mid‑$70s, as traders weighed the potential for escalation against buffer capacity and broader production trends. Estimates from Rystad Energy suggest oil will likely remain capped below $80 unless dramatic escalation occurs—a view echoed by Midland Reporter‑Telegram coverage.

Citi’s note, authored by Anthony Yuen and Eric Lee, highlights that even though Hormuz closure would trigger a pronounced price spike, global strategic response and logistical imperatives would likely curtail its duration. They describe that, in their bullish scenario, “any closure of the Strait could lead to a sharp price spike … but … it should not be a multi‑month closure.”

Investors are advised to monitor diplomatic channels, oil inventories, and production shifts in Saudi Arabia, UAE and the US. While a temporary supply squeeze may lift prices—potentially to the $90 level—structural growth in non‑OPEC output and strategic reserves may prevent a prolonged energy shock.

Tata Consultancy Services confirmed its systems and user infrastructure remain uncompromised following the cyberattack that struck the retailer Marks & Spencer. At its annual shareholder meeting on 19 June, independent director Keki Mistry emphasised, “As no TCS systems or users were compromised, none of our other customers are impacted,” noting the ongoing M&S investigation does not extend to TCS systems.

M&S, which disclosed the cyber incident in April, continues to navigate significant disruption. The attack, attributed to the “highly sophisticated and targeted” Scattered Spider hacking group, reportedly utilised stolen help‑desk credentials from a TCS contractor. This led to the theft of personal data and forced the retailer to suspend online clothing sales for weeks—their online operations remain impaired, with recovery expected to extend into July.

Financial impact estimates remain stark. M&S anticipates a £300 million loss in operating profit, with weekly losses highlighted at approximately £40 million spanning clothing and food services. The retailer has drawn on its robust financial footing—boasting over £400 million in net funds before the incident—to support recovery measures. Insurance claims and cost containment strategies aim to offset roughly half of the losses.

The attack’s disruption extended to in‑store services, including payment systems and “meal‑deal” availability at stations, where stocks dwindled and meal‑deal offers were suspended. M&S CEO Stuart Machin described the incident as triggered by human error, stating that attackers duped a contractor’s help‑desk staff via social engineering tactics. Although M&S has not disclosed ransom payment details, hackers reportedly issued a ransom demand to Machin directly, claiming ransomware deployment across the retailer’s servers.

TCS had been internally probing whether its systems served as the breach gateway, an inquiry reportedly scheduled for completion by the end of May. With Mistry’s public assurance, TCS now distances itself from fault, while confirming its services to other clients—including the UK Co‑op—remained unaffected.

Beyond TCS, UK retailers Co‑op and Harrods have suffered similar breaches in recent weeks, prompting government authorities to call cybercrime “serious organised crime” and urge businesses to elevate cybersecurity priorities. The National Cyber Security Centre is rolling out new software security guidance for the sector.

M&S leadership has kick‑started accelerated IT modernisation, fast‑tracking system upgrades they had planned over two years into the next six months to strengthen defences. CEO Machin reaffirmed the retailer’s resilience, underlining transparency in communication and ongoing support to customers during the disruption.

While TCS’s reassurance quells immediate concerns among its client base, reputational challenges linger. Cybersecurity analysts warn that such high‑profile breaches erode trust in outsourcing vendors. Mumbai‑based brokerage Nirmal Bang commented that linkage to the attack would be “quite embarrassing” for TCS.

TCS’s absence of any formal probe initiation by regulators signals regulatory leniency. However, this episode spotlights the vulnerabilities inherent in third‑party access chains. As M&S works to restore its online footprint and TCS reaffirms its integrity, both firms face ongoing scrutiny over their cybersecurity governance.

Hackers claiming affiliation with Predatory Sparrow, possibly linked to Israel, have executed a cyber‑strike against Nobitex, Iran’s leading cryptocurrency exchange, erasing approximately $90 million worth of digital assets. The assault began in the early hours of 18 June 2025, when the group transferred diverse cryptocurrencies—including Bitcoin, Ethereum and Dogecoin—into vanishing crypto‑wallets designed without private keys, effectively “burning” the funds to send a deliberate political message.

Blockchain analytics firms, including Elliptic and TRM Labs, analysed the transactions and found the emptied addresses bore anti‑IRGC messages, confirming the operation was ideologically motivated rather than financially driven. Elliptic noted that the assets were moved into vanity addresses with embedded slogans denouncing the IRGC, and that the group leaking the funds would not retain the keys, ensuring permanent loss.

Noble objective remains politically charged

The group, using its Farsi‑named moniker Gonjeshke Darande—or “Predatory Sparrow”—publicly accused Nobitex of facilitating Iran’s sanctions evasion and funding militant groups, claiming the platform had enabled transactions for IRGC‑linked factions such as Hamas and Yemen’s Houthis. Elliptic has traced past ties between Nobitex and IRGC‑affiliated actors, including sanctioned individuals like Amir Hossein Niakeen Ravari and Ahmad Khatibi Aghada.

The hack comes amid heightened Israel‑Iran tensions. Reports indicate that Predatory Sparrow also targeted Iran’s state‑owned Bank Sepah on 17 June, triggering widespread service disruption, including to ATMs and fuel stations. Analysts interpret these cyber‑operations as extensions of conventional military retaliations between the two nations.

Nobitex disruptions raise alarm

Nobitex admitted to unauthorised access affecting both its app and website, temporarily shutting services while conducting assessments. Public updates from the exchange have been sparse, and customer inquiries have reportedly gone unanswered. Plans to recover or rebuild lost assets remain unclear, raising concerns among its claimed user base of over 7 million.

Despite accusations, Israel has not officially claimed responsibility. Media speculation within the country suggests government backing, but no formal confirmation has been issued. Predatory Sparrow, noted for previous impactful operations—from collapsing gas station networks in 2021 to prompting major fires at a steel mill in 2022—added this attack to its growing list of cyber engagements against Iranian infrastructure.

Impact and implications for crypto ecosystem

Cyber‑security analysts have labelled the hack “particularly significant given the comparatively modest size of Iran’s cryptocurrency market,” with Chainalysis intelligence chief Andrew Fierman underscoring the political overtones. The operation exemplifies how digital currencies and blockchain platforms are becoming tactical assets and vulnerabilities within geopolitical conflicts.

U.S. legislators, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Angus King, previously raised concerns over Nobitex’s facilitation of sanctions avoidance, highlighting its role in enabling Iran’s IRGC and related proxies to move financial resources. This attack may intensify scrutiny on crypto exchanges suspected of abetting questionable transactions in sanctioned jurisdictions.

Decline of Iran’s crypto defences

Crypto adoption in Iran has long served as a hedge against economic instability, with citizens and state‑linked groups alike using digital currencies to escape inflationary pressures and circumvent banking restrictions. Nobitex, in particular, developed significant traction, drawing millions of users seeking alternative financial tools.

However, analysts warn this sabotage could erode investor trust, disrupt public confidence in digital assets, and invite heightened regulatory oversight. Exchanges in politically sensitive regions may now face new security standards and sanctions compliance demands.

A new frontier in cyber‑warfare

This development underlines a shift where cyber‑warfare transcends state boundaries, now targeting third‑party financial networks with tangible consequences. By obliterating rather than stealing funds, Predatory Sparrow signalled that its operation aimed to disrupt Iran’s crypto‑financing rather than profit from it.

Officials tracking these patterns warn that similar tactics may emerge as cyber‑tools of statecraft evolve, affecting financial systems across volatile regions. Experts suggest exchanges handling high‑risk jurisdictions should shore up defences and improve transparency around asset provenance and network resilience.

As Nobitex works to restore functionality, regulators, crypto stakeholders and intelligence services will closely examine the incident. The breach draws attention to the critical role of exchanges in global geopolitics, raising complex questions about neutrality, compliance and cybersecurity in an increasingly fraught digital economy.

A ballistic missile launched by Iran struck the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange building in Ramat Gan on 19 June 2025, inflicting substantial structural damage in the heart of Israel’s financial district. This incident occurred amid a coordinated barrage that also hit key civilian infrastructure elsewhere, including Soroka Medical Centre in Be’er Sheva, intensifying already volatile regional tensions.

Sirens wailed across central and southern Israel as air defence systems engaged waves of inbound missiles. Between 20 and 30 ballistic projectiles were reported, an escalation surpassing previous exchanges earlier this monthꟷnotably those on 15 and 16 June, which injured dozens and damaged residences in Tel Aviv, Bat Yam and Haifa. This latest salvo targeted multiple urban areas, with at least 32 civilians confirmed wounded by Magen David Adom teams, some in serious condition.

The stock exchange structure, known as Birsa, sustained extensive facade damage and shattered windows, with parts of surrounding offices impacted. Video footage circulated online showing debris falling from upper floors into streets below. Emergency crews were deployed immediately to evacuate employees and assess structural integrity, though no fatalities were reported at the site.

In parallel, Soroka Medical Centre at Be’er Sheva—Israel’s principal hospital serving around one million residents with more than 1,000 beds—was also struck. Footage and eyewitness reports confirmed significant damage: roof collapse in some wards, shattered glass across corridors and injuries among both patients and medical staff. Hospital officials imposed strict access controls, advising the public to avoid the area as emergency protocols were activated.

Israel’s air-defence systems, including Iron Dome and Arrow batteries, intercepted many of the missiles but failed to prevent all impacts. Some missiles penetrated defences and struck densely populated neighbourhoods, damaging residential high-rises and injuring civilians. This pattern marks a troubling shift. Previous intercepts had been more successful, but the latest strikes have underscored vulnerabilities in urban protection.

The missile offensive came as retaliation for Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Earlier on 19 June, Israeli aircraft reportedly struck the heavy-water reactor at Arak and a related plutonium-production component, in what the Israeli government called efforts to disrupt Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. Iran’s state media countered that the reactor had been evacuated in advance and there was no radiation leak.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly condemned the missile strikes on Israel’s financial hub and its hospital network, accusing Iran’s leadership of targeting civilians and vowing that Tehran “will pay the full price”. Defence officials say that Iran deployed over 25 missiles targeting Israeli urban centres during this wave.

Humanitarian services are stretched thin. Magen David Adom paramedics reported at least 32 people with injuries ranging from shock and minor shrapnel wounds to serious trauma in Be’er Sheva and Tel Aviv. Hospitals near strike zones have diverted critically ill patients and limited admissions to emergencies, raising concerns over the continuity of essential health services.

Economically, the assault on the stock exchange reverberated across markets. While share trading has continued, operational disruptions occurred as staff evacuated and investigations into building safety commenced. Analysts note that the financial centre embodies Israel’s economic resilience, but warn that repeated infrastructure targeting injects uncertainty into investor sentiment.

As missiles fly in both directions, global powers are watching warily. US President Donald Trump indicated possible military support for Israel pending internal approval, while European leaders called for restraint and emphasised the potential for diplomatic channels. The International Atomic Energy Agency has voiced alarm over Iran’s uranium enrichment practices, now exacerbated by military confrontations sparked by retaliatory airstrikes.

Israeli authorities warn that this may be Iran’s most sustained attack yet, burning through long-range arsenal previously reserved for strategic military targets. Intelligence assessments suggest Iran is deploying missiles intensively—over 400 since the conflict’s escalation—though only a fraction have struck urban centres.

With civilian infrastructure clearly in the crosshairs, the stakes are escalating dangerously. Analysts warn that further strikes on hospitals, markets or cultural institutions may invite stronger Israeli countermeasures, potentially widening the conflict. For now, cities remain on high alert as missiles continue to disrupt daily life and rattle the foundations of an already tense Middle East.