The bodies of an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier and two civilians killed in the Hamas-led October 7 attacks have been recovered from Gaza in a military hostage recovery operation.

In a special operation carried out by the Israel Security Agency (ISA) and the IDF, the bodies of civilians, Ofra Keidar and Yonatan Samerano, and soldier Shay Levinson were recovered from the Gaza Strip on Saturday, the ISA and IDF said in a joint statement Sunday.

Ofra Keidar, from the kibbutz Be’eri community, was killed by Hamas militants on October 7, 2023. The 71-year-old’s body was taken to Gaza, where it had been held since. Keidar was a wife and mother of three. Her husband was also killed in Hamas’ attack.

“On that dark Saturday Ofra went, as usual, for a walk in the fields she loved – and never returned,” her kibbutz said in a statement.

“Ofra was one of the women leading Be’eri to be the flourished kibbutz it has become, and set an example for other women while showing strength and leadership skills. She left three children and seven grandchildren.”

Samerano, 21, from Tel Aviv, was killed by Hamas militants who took his body after fleeing the Nova music festival.

Levinson, a dual German-Israeli national and tank commander, was killed in combat on October 7, the joint ISA-IDF statement said. The 19-year-old’s body was then taken to Gaza.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum said: “Alongside the grief and pain, the return of their bodies provides some comfort to the families who have waited in agony, uncertainty, and doubt for 625 days.”

The forum also called for the return of the remaining 50 hostages in Gaza to be a priority as Israel continues its conflict with Iran. “Particularly against the backdrop of current military developments and the significant achievements in Iran, we want to emphasize that bringing back the remaining 50 hostages is the key to achieving complete Israeli victory,” it said.

In a statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered his “heartfelt condolences” to the families of Keidar, Samerano and Levinson and thanked Israeli soldiers for a “successful operation.”

In a warehouse in northeast Nigeria, a nonprofit’s stocks of food to treat malnourished children and pregnant women are running low.

The organization, Action Against Hunger (ACF), is running a project to combat malnutrition that had been relying on funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to procure much-needed therapeutic food sachets. But the project was intermittently suspended, leaving ACF unable to procure enough of the nutrient-rich food during the peak season of malnutrition.

It’s one of the many urgent, lifesaving aid projects left in limbo and in need of additional resources following the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID.

But now, a group of former USAID staff has come together to connect big donors with cost-effective projects like this, which desperately need cash to carry out operations already in the pipeline.

The primary goal is “to save as many lives as possible,” said Robert Rosenbaum, a former USAID portfolio manager and one of the people spearheading the initiative, which they are calling Project Resource Optimization (PRO). “At this point, there really are people who are dying as a result of these (budget) decisions and this halting of the work.”

Rosenbaum said that thinking about cuts to American programs tackling things like malnutrition, extreme poverty and disease prevention was keeping him up at night after he lost his job earlier this year.

So, he and other laid-off USAID workers decided to do something. They began vetting projects being carried out by USAID partner organizations, which had abruptly lost their funding earlier this year.

They gradually built a spreadsheet – dubbed the Urgent & Vetted Projects list – and started matchmaking, setting up meetings between the most critical and cost-effective programs and donors who wanted to help, but didn’t know where to start.

The spreadsheet was first inspired by reach-outs from a few small family foundations seeking expert guidance on where to best put their dollars, amid the initial uncertainty surrounding US government aid cuts. But it quickly grew into something bigger.

It became clear to Rosenbaum that there was an opportunity to “expand the overall pool of private philanthropy” and bring in donations from people who might not have considered giving to international aid projects until this year.

“There have been a handful of folks who have come out of the woodwork and literally written us an email that’s like, ‘I set aside $100,000, $200,000, a million dollars… And this is exactly how I want to think about giving… So, help us figure out how to do this,’” he said.

Earlier this week, the PRO team also launched a tool for smaller donors to contribute online, crowdfunding for some of the most critical aid projects.

Now, anyone can give a one-time or monthly contribution to the team’s “Rapid Response Fund” to support vetted projects in Sudan, Haiti, Nigeria and more.

“For most of the humanitarian projects that we’ve talked to… sometime this summer, if the funding doesn’t come through, the lights will go off and it will be very hard to stand back up,” Rosenbaum said.

“Part of what we’re offering for funders is that the fixed cost of standing these projects up has already been taken on by the US government. The staff has already been hired, they’re trained, they’re in place. The commodities, in many cases, have been procured and are sitting in a warehouse,” Rosenbaum said. “There’s all these efficiencies.

“But the flip side is that the cost of shutting them down is extraordinarily high,” he added, noting that typically it takes years for local organizations to build trust with authorities, leaders and communities.

In Mali, an organization called the Alliance for International Medical Action (ALIMA) was at risk of shutting down a project that delivers medical care to children under five, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers, as well as providing mobile health clinics to internally displaced people.

“We were forced to suspend activities and reduce activities at different points,” said Carlota Ruiz, the organization’s head of grant management, adding that more than half ALIMA’s operating budget in Mali had come from USAID. “One of our main concerns in terms of navigating suspensions or project closures was the risk to our credibility and our relationships with the Ministry of Health and the communities that we work with.”

Weeks ago, the organization was facing the prospect of shutting down vital services, but now a new grant will allow ALIMA to provide 70,000 medical consultations to people in need and treat more than 5,000 children with severe acute malnutrition.

Meanwhile, in Nigeria, ACF says it is close to securing funding to keep one of its malnutrition projects going, after coordinating with the PRO team.

The funding will go towards procuring more ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF). The timing was “extremely critical,” according to an ACF staff member on the ground.

But the funding will only go towards that one project. ACF also supports programs in northern Nigeria that provide food assistance, clean water and sanitation, and support hundreds of health clinics.

“It will be very meaningful, and it will be really very useful to ensure continuity of activity and save the lives of thousands of children,” the ACF worker said of the grant about to be finalized. “But this project cannot address all the other aspects of our work.”

After the United States’ overnight strikes on Iran’s secretive nuclear program, the most important question is at least a “known unknown” – that is, what remains of it. The answer could define the region for decades to come, and be the ultimate arbiter of US President Donald Trump’s decision to embark on another conflict in the Middle East.

It is also an answer bedevilled by the elliptical and fickle nature of intelligence. On the one hand, public discussion of nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan should have left Tehran unwilling to let all of its nuclear secrets reside there. (Iran has said its program is entirely peaceful, although the UN’s nuclear watchdog reported finding uranium particles enriched up to 83% – just short of weapons grade).

If, as Israel maintains, Iran’s nuclear program has a hidden element, then surely that would not be housed in the same places where UN inspectors roam, and in the case of Fordow, over which there has been a public discussion for days of what American bombs might penetrate its deep caverns.

The raw materials needed for a nuclear bomb can be small: 20 kilograms of highly enriched uranium would suffice. The ingredients for several devices would fit into a minivan. This could be hidden anywhere in Iran. The technology needed to create a weapon is fiddlier, and requires human expertise, which Israel has been decimating over both the past 10 days, with strikes targeting key personnel, and also picking off more persistently over the past 10 years.

It is hard to imagine Iran suddenly being able to make this leap while under the intense bombardment of Israel’s air force, now with the open involvement of the US and its vast surveillance machinery too.

But this is an unknown, and Israel cannot have it both ways. If you insist Iran’s program is advanced and secretive, then there is also the risk something is happening that you are unaware of. Could Iran have assembled all the elements it needs, or even an atomic bomb, at another site, and just be waiting? Only time will tell.

The counterargument is also persuasive. Israel has been able to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists and military command as they slept in their homes – specific rooms in apartment blocks hit in the first wave of strikes on June 13. This suggests the wide and impressive penetration of vast parts of Tehran’s command structure and its most guarded secrets. No operation is perfect; it is possible Washington and Tel Aviv combined knew a lot.

It was not just the mountain fortress of Fordow that was struck, either. It is likely, as the dust clears and satellite images provide greater clarity in the battle damage assessment, that we will learn of targets being hit that we did not know about a week ago. For the opponents of Iran’s nuclear ambitions – just about everybody bar a handful of Iranian hardliners – that should provide some comfort.

But it is likely the Saturday night strikes did not take out everything – not every expert, or every piece of fissile material. The struggle will now be to chase what is left – to pursue the survivors and look for opportunities if panicked elements of the nuclear project make mistakes as they scatter or pick through the rubble.

What will remain will likely be the parts of Iran’s program which were unknown, if there are any. Tehran may decide that it would be better to reveal or progress this greatest secret only once the threat of Israeli strikes recedes. Does it make sense to rush it out now, at the height of surveillance and bombardment?

Diplomacy may – as Trump has suggested with his overnight post on Truth Social that “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!” – now re-emerge. But the face of it has changed entirely compared to a week ago. Iranian officials had hinted to the media it might be willing to give up enrichment during talks in the past week. The demands placed upon it may now center on its ballistic missile program, which US hawks have long demanded be dismantled. That is happening, it seems, at a fast rate already, through its intense use of missiles to target Israel, and as a result of Israeli strikes that claim to have taken out the majority of its launchers.

The fact that Iran’s wish list for negotiations is now significantly altered – as much of what it’s hoped to keep has been destroyed or used – reveals the challenge of this moment to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His skies are owned by a hostile air force, his nuclear program heavily damaged, and his military infrastructure and command shattered, constantly having to adapt and replace to survive. This limits his immediate, favorable options for a response. Flat-out strikes against US bases will simply augur a violent US retaliation, and may, after this much telegraphing, prove ineffective.

Iran has generally turned to asymmetrical responses, to compensate for its smaller budgets and capabilities. We may see this in the capital cities of Europe and in the Strait of Hormuz in the coming days. It needs to both display some sort of deterrent but also de-escalate, in order to survive.

But Iran’s capacity to see the longer-view, and its strategic patience, will work in its favor. There are no real electoral cycles to beset the Ayatollah’s decision-making. The Iranians have time to regroup, and respond when the heat is lower.

The United States, however, has a poor track record of success and application in the region. Last night, it gained the dubious distinction of having bombed a full cartographical sweep of nations from Syria through to Afghanistan in just 20 years. But it failed to dislodge the Assad regime of Syria, and despite years of trying were observers when last year’s sweeping changes removed one of Iran’s main regional proxies. And its longest war, in Afghanistan, ended in stark humiliation. Iraq, too, began with disputed information about weapons of mass destruction, and ended in failure after years of destruction and loss.

Iran is not Iraq and last night was not March 20, 2003, when America’s ill-fated invasion of that country began. There is no ground element to Trump’s ambition in Iran, and its goal was something widely supported by allies, and possibly within reach. But the US’ questionable track record and the hubristic atmosphere around Trump’s overwhelming use of force, should amplify alarm in the region over the unknowns to come.

Warplanes. Submarines. Cruise missiles. Bombs that weigh 30,000 pounds.

After initially favoring diplomacy, US President Donald Trump resorted to an extraordinary use of force against Iran on Saturday night, striking three of the regime’s key nuclear sites.

Trump claimed Iran’s nuclear facilities had been “obliterated,” but some Iranian officials downplayed the impact of the strikes – just as they did when Israel first struck Iran’s facilities on June 13.

With satellite imagery of the overnight strikes beginning to emerge, here’s what we know about the damage the US inflicted on Iran’s nuclear program.

Fordow

Fordow is Iran’s most important nuclear enrichment facility, buried deep inside a mountain to guard it from attacks.

The main halls are believed to be some 80 to 90 meters (262 to 295 feet) below ground. Analysts have long said that the US is the only military in the world with the kind of bomb required to burrow that deeply – the enormous, 30,000-pound GBU-57.

The images, captured by Maxar, showed six separate impact craters in two nearby locations at Fordow. The craters are visible along a ridge running over the underground complex.

“Of course, one cannot exclude (the possibility) that there is significant damage there,” he said.

“Total destruction of the underground hall is quite possible,” Albright said, while stressing that a full assessment of the damage will take time.

N.R. Jenzen-Jones, a munitions specialist and director of the research company Armament Research Services (ARES), concurred that there are at least six entry points in Fordow following the US strikes.

“This is consistent with the theory of an attack on such a deeply buried target as the Fordow site, which would require multiple precisely delivered, and carefully calibrated, penetrating munitions to essentially ‘smash’ and blast their way through to the deeper, more protected areas of the site,” he added.

Satellite imagery also showed significant changes to the color of the mountainside where the facility is housed, indicating a vast area was covered with a layer of grey ash in the aftermath of the strikes.

Although Iran’s foreign minister said the US had crossed a “very big red line,” other Iranian leaders downplayed the strikes’ impact. Manan Raeisi, a lawmaker representing the city of Qom, near Fordow, said the damage from the attack was “quite superficial.”

Natanz

Natanz is the site of Iran’s largest nuclear enrichment center and was targeted in Israel’s initial attack on Iran on June 13. The site has six above-ground buildings and three underground structures, which house centrifuges – a key technology in nuclear enrichment, turning uranium into nuclear fuel.

The above-ground facilities were damaged in Israel’s initial attack. The IAEA said the strikes damaged electrical infrastructure at the plant.

Although it is not clear if Israel’s strikes caused direct damage to the underground facilities, the IAEA said the loss of power to the underground cascade hall “may have damaged the centrifuges there.”

The US also targeted Natanz in its Saturday night operation. A US official said a B-2 bomber had dropped two bunker-busting bombs on the site.

US Navy submarines also fired 30 TLAM cruise missiles at Natanz and Isfahan, the third Iranian site targeted by the US.

Isfahan

Isfahan, in central Iran, is home to the country’s largest nuclear research complex.

The facility was built with support from China and opened in 1984, according to the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). Some 3,000 scientists are employed at Isfahan, NTI says, and the site is “suspected of being the center” of Iran’s nuclear program.

Albright said initial reports suggested that the US also struck tunnel complexes near the Isfahan site, “where they typically store enriched uranium.”

If confirmed, Albright said this would show that the US was trying to take out Iran’s stocks of uranium that had been enriched to 20% and 60%. Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to 90%.

At a Pentagon news conference Sunday, Gen. Dan Caine, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a US submarine had “launched more than a dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets” at the Isfahan site.

The smile on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s face was impossible to hide.

Minutes after President Donald Trump announced that the US had bombed three of Iran’s nuclear facilities, Netanyahu effusively praised the American leader as someone whose decisions could lead the region to a “future of prosperity and peace.”

Since Israel launched its attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and other targets, Netanyahu and the country’s other political echelon had been careful not to be perceived as dragging Trump into another war in the Middle East. In the end, the US joining the campaign – and taking credit for the results – is arguably an even bigger success for Netanyahu, who brought the world’s superpower into what had been Israel’s mission.

Netanyahu has talked about the threat of Iran for much of his political career, parading out visual aids on occasion – like a cartoon of a bomb at the UN General Assembly in 2012 – to help his audience. But the longstanding criticism was that Netanyahu’s rhetoric was all bark, no bite.

For all the talk of the threat Iran posed to Israel and the wider region, Netanyahu never pulled the trigger on a major military operation. Instead, he authorized sporadic high-risk, high-reward operations from Israel’s Mossad spy agency, including the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and the stealing of the country’s nuclear archive.

But Iran’s nuclear program survived largely unscathed, and Netanyahu was left for years with no measurable achievement against an issue he came to see as an existential threat to Israel.

The last 10 days rewrote the script.

Aviv Bushinsky, who worked with Netanyahu during his first term in the late-90s, called the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities “no doubt his greatest accomplishment.”

Israel’s initial waves of attacks and its establishment of air superiority over Iran began a clear string of military successes, which the Trump administration ultimately joined.

The scale of the success is so great that Bushinsky argued it made Netanyahu’s one of the country’s top two or three leaders since the country’s founding in 1948. The “stain” of failing to stop the Hamas-led attack on October 7 remains with Netanyahu, Bushinsky said, but the attack on Iran has immediately become part of his legacy.

“Netanyahu has a signature of taking down the nuclear capabilities of the Iranians,” he said.

Now Netanyahu immediately faces another challenge: deciding what to do next. At least publicly, the US has made it clear that it sees the Iran strikes as finished as long as Iranian forces don’t attack US troops in the region.

But after starting the campaign alone, Israel is still pressing its advantage. Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said Sunday that Israel was preparing for the “campaign to prolong.” Before the weekend, Israel had conducted the military campaign against Iran on its own, and it has since carried out more strikes after the US bombing of the nuclear facilities.

“If the war was designed to obliterate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and the president of the United States says they destroyed the three facilities, then why isn’t Israel announcing mission accomplished?” former Israeli consul general Alon Pinkas asked rhetorically. “This military solution for everything is fine, as long as you understand that it is aligned with political goals. And I don’t see them.”

Since the start of the Trump administration, the friction between Trump and Netanyahu has been on full display as the White House pursued a series of steps in the region that left Israel sidelined. Trump’s first trip to the Middle East blew right past Israel without stopping, the American president signed a ceasefire deal with the Houthis in Yemen that cut out Israel, and he surprised Netanyahu in April by announcing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The US decisions raised questions about whether Netanyahu was able to handle a second Trump administration, especially one with a far more vocal isolationist wing.

All of those questions disappeared in a puff of bunker buster smoke in the aftermath of the US strikes as the two leaders heaped praise on one another

The issue of Iran had broad consensus among much of Israeli society, with a majority of the country viewing a nuclear Iran as an existential threat.

According to a survey from the Israel Democracy Institute done before the US strikes, approximately 70% of Israelis supported the campaign against Iran, while nearly as many believe it was right to launch the strikes without a guarantee of US involvement.

That level of support has drawn accolades for Netanyahu even from his detractors.

“You don’t have to like Netanyahu in order to admit yes, he achieved something,” said Ben-Dror Yemini, a political analyst for Israel’s prominent Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

But the current moment – one in which Israel and the US have carried out punishing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities – requires sensitive diplomacy and a willingness to back off the military successes that appear to have come so easily, Yemini said.

The decision to act and the decision to wait each involved its own elements of risk, according to former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro.

“There’s risk in any use of forces and certainly in a major decision like this one from the United States,” Shapiro said. “But there was risk in not acting and leaving Iran within weeks of a nuclear bomb at the time of their choosing.”

But having made the critical choice to go after Iran’s nuclear facilities, Shapiro said it would be a grave mistake to assume the conflict is over.

Asked if the Middle East was safer now than it was before US involvement in the strikes against Iran, Shapiro said it depends on whether the bombing campaign destroyed or significantly damaged Iranian nuclear facilities. It also depends on how Iran chooses to respond, which he said requires the international community to lead Iran away from escalation.

“It’s too early to celebrate the achievement.”

At least 20 people have been killed and 52 more are injured after a “terrorist attack” on a Greek Orthodox church in the Syrian capital on Sunday, according to the country’s health ministry.

He opened fire on the congregation of Mar Elias Church in Damascus, before “detonating himself using an explosive vest,” the ministry said in a statement.

A mass was being held at the church at the time of the attack, according to Syria’s state news agency SANA.

A video circulating on Syrian social media from inside the church shows dead bodies, significant destruction, shattered glass and broken chairs in the area where mass was being held, with blood visible throughout the scene.

Syria’s civil defense, popularly known as the White Helmets, said emergency teams were working to transfer the bodies to hospitals and secure the area.

“The treacherous hand of evil struck” on Sunday, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch said in a statement, writing that “an explosion occurred at the entrance of the church, resulting in the deaths of numerous martyrs and causing injuries to many others who were inside the church or in its immediate vicinity.”

“We offer our prayers for the repose of the souls of the martyrs, for the healing of the wounded, and for the consolation of our grieving faithful. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to our faith and, through that steadfastness, our rejection of all fear and intimidation,” the church said.

The United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Geir O. Pedersen, expressed “outrage” at the “heinous crime,” his office said in a statement.

“Mr. Pedersen calls on all to unite in rejecting terrorism, extremism, incitement and the targeting of any community in Syria. He sends his deepest condolences to the families of the victims and his hope for the recovery of those injured,” the statement said.

The United States’ Special Envoy for Syria, Thomas Barrack, called the attack an act of “cowardice,” saying in a statement that it has “no place in the new tapestry of integrated tolerance and inclusion that Syrians are weaving.”

The foreign ministries of Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel, Greece, Cyprus, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Ukraine, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands also spoke out in condemnation of the attack.