American-Iranians worry about safety of loved ones as communication becomes harder
American-Iranians say they are worried about the safety of their loved ones in Iran as the recent attacks is making communication much harder. NBC News' Keir Simmons has more on the communication inside Iran.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Israel-Iran live updates: Conflict enters 9th day as diplomacy falters
CONFLICT ENTERS 9TH DAY: Iran sent a missile barrage into Israel early this morning, sending millions into bomb shelters but with no reported casualties. Israel continued to strike military sites in Iran. NO BREAKTHROUGHS ON INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY: A summit in Geneva yesterday with Iran's foreign minister and European leaders yielded no signs of a breakthrough. At the United Nations Security Council, Iran and Israel traded insults in a heated but ultimately inconclusive meeting. U.S. POSITION: Trump dismissed the European effort, suggesting that a diplomatic solution would require U.S. involvement. On Thursday, he opened a two-week window for negotiations with Iran, delaying a decision on a U.S. military strike on Iranian nuclear sites. IRAN AND ISRAEL: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told NBC News that Iran was not sure it could trust the U.S., and that they would not negotiate 'as long as the aggression continues.' The Israeli military chief said yesterday that the country is ready for 'a prolonged campaign' against Iran. NUCLEAR SITE RISKS: The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, said Israel's strikes on Iranian nuclear power sites have caused some radiological leaks. There is no danger to the public for now, he said,'but there is a danger this could still happen.' HUNDREDS KILLED: Israeli strikes have so far killed at least 630 people in Iran, The Associated Press reported, citing a Washington-based human rights group. The Iranian health ministry says more than 2,500 people have been wounded. The death toll in Israel from Iran's retaliatory strikes remains at 24.
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
Why is China rushing to grow its nuclear arsenal?
China is growing its nuclear arsenal at a faster pace than any other country on the planet, according to new figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It estimates that Beijing now has more than 600 nuclear warheads and is adding about 100 per year to its stockpile. That means that by 2035, it will have more than 1,500 warheads, still only a third of the arsenal of each of Russia and the US, but nevertheless an enormous increase and a marked shift away from its proclaimed policy of 'minimum deterrence'. To facilitate this expanding arsenal, China is building fields of new missile silos in its western desert regions. The Federation of American Scientists, which identified the silos via satellite imagery, has described them as 'the most significant expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal ever.' China is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime The Pentagon believes China is planning to quadruple its nuclear weapons stockpile by 2030, and its fears have been further heightened by People's Liberation Army (PLA) tests of nuclear-capable hypersonic weapons designed to evade America's nuclear defences. One test involved the launch of a rocket into space, which circled the globe before releasing into orbit a highly manoeuvrable hypersonic glider. The nuclear-capable glider – which has been likened to a weaponised space shuttle – had the ability to surf along the earth's atmosphere before powering down to its target at up to five times the speed of sound (hence the hypersonic). Hypersonic weapons are far more difficult to detect and destroy than traditional ballistic missiles. This week, China's foreign ministry spokesperson insisted: 'China has always adhered to the nuclear strategy of self-defence, always maintained its nuclear forces at the minimum level required for national security, and has not participated in the arms race.' This claim is almost as hackneyed as that of China's 'peaceful rise', but understanding China's evolving military doctrine is especially challenging because Beijing 'is refusing to take part in nuclear arms control talks. China last year suspended talks over arms control and nuclear proliferation with the US ostensibly because of American arms sales to Taiwan. However, Beijing has always been a reluctant participant. It is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime, yet there are none of the protocols and little of the depth of mutual knowledge about capabilities and intentions that existed and provided a level of stability during the last Cold War with the Soviet Union. Western strategists believe that one aim of the rapid nuclear build-up is to deter America from coming to the defence of Taiwan, which China claims as its own, and which it has repeatedly threatened to invade. The thinly disguised message to Washington is that America is deluding itself if it thinks a conflict over Taiwan could be contained to the immediate area and not endanger the American homeland. Trying to make sense of China's military doctrine is made all the more challenging by an ongoing purge at the top of the PLA and a heightened level of intrigue surrounding both the army and the Chinese Communist party (CCP). Earlier this year, General He Weidong, the number-two officer in the PLA and a member of the CCP's 24-strong politburo, was removed from his post. This followed the disappearance of Miao Hua, a navy admiral and one of six members (along with He) of the party's powerful central military commission, which is chaired by President Xi Jinping. Miao was also head of the PLA's political works department – charged with ensuring CCP control over the military. The PLA is a party organisation, and in the military pecking order, Miao was regarded as more powerful even than defence minister Dong Jun. Rumours have also swirled that Dong himself has been under investigation. He appears to have survived, at least for now, but if deposed, he would be the third successive defence minister to face corruption charges. China's rocket force, the most secretive and sensitive branch of China's military responsible for overseeing in part all those shiny new nukes, has also been the target of an extensive purge. Those targeted included the two heads of the force. Among others purged have been a navy commander responsible for the South China Sea and several others responsible for procuring equipment – long a notoriously corrupt part of the military. When Xi came to power in 2012, he pledged to clean up the PLA, which ran a business empire so big that preparing for war often appeared to be a secondary concern. In spite (or possibly because of) Xi's efforts, the graft only seems to have got worse – though it should be noted that 'corruption' is frequently used as a catch-all and a pretext for the removal of those considered insufficiently loyal to the leader. Because many of those now being targeted include Xi's hand-picked officials, it will inevitably be seen as an indictment of his abilities and judgement. This week's figures from SIPRI certainly confirm the worrying extent of China's nuclear ambitions. For the country's top brass charged with wielding these fearsome weapons, however, navigating the corridors of power at the pinnacle of Xi Jinping's capricious CCP is proving considerably more dangerous than the battlefield.
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
Where have all the anti-war Democrats gone?
To bomb or not to bomb? President Trump treats waging war with the same gravity he might deploy when deciding whether to play golf. He said this week that 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. Call it strategic ambiguity, or flagrant honesty. You get the sense that the president doesn't know himself whether he will give the order. The White House line right now is that the president will decide over the next two weeks. Cue chatter that this is a ruse to discombobulate the Iranians before an imminent American strike. Whatever he decides, Trump's attempt to save face after Netanyahu ignored his plea to leave the negotiations with Iran alone has exposed fissures between the neo-cons in his administration and the Maga isolationists. The Maga activist Laura Loomer has started a list of those who criticised the president, presumably for a future purge. What, then, are the Democrats doing to exploit this chink in the normally preternaturally cultish Maga movement which rarely turns on itself? Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, issued an milquetoast statement when Israel first struck Iran. Hakeem Jeffries, his counterpart in the House of Representatives, issued a similar statement but called for American troops not to be put 'in harm's way'. As Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Times, neither Democratic leader instructed the President that the authority to go to war resides with Congress. (Schumer later did, but took no action to that effect.) There is a tendency within the party to treat war as a non-partisan issue, as if bombing another country in the name of national security is a foregone conclusion. A rally-around-our-troops effect takes hold. This might be a missed opportunity for the Democrats to become the anti-war party, a position Trump has dominated since he won in 2016. A YouGov/Economist poll found that 60 per cent of Americans don't think Trump should get involved in the war, including over half of Republican voters, with only 16 per cent supporting action. Yet, the anti-war Democrats are confined to the party's populist left, or what you could more generously call the left who wants to be popular. Bernie Sanders has introduced a No War Against Iran bill in the Senate. Ro Khanna, the progressive Democratic representative, has emerged as the party's leading anti-war figure. Khanna opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and sees interventionism in the Middle East as yet another example – alongside globalisation and a pro-rich tax policy – of how communities in states such as Pennsylvania were shunted to the bottom of Washington's priorities. It's a message Trump has put to good use for over a decade. Democrats' pitch to voters could now include both opposition to Trump's militarism at home and abroad. Challenging Trump's potential strikes could become a chance for the Democrats to tap into that populist anger which Trump has so deftly mined for so long. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Is Trump the last neoconservative?] Related
