DAWN Statement On The Trump Administration's War On Iran
In response to U.S. airstrikes inside Iran ordered by President Trump, DAWN issued the following statements:
'Trump's unprovoked and unauthorized attacks on Iran not only violate international law but the U.S. Constitution, which grants only Congress the right to declare war,' said Sarah Leah Whitson, DAWN's Executive Director. 'Trump has recklessly launched a war that harms American interests in service of Israeli demands, and broken his promise to the American people to put America first.'
'President Trump's actions will most likely lead to retaliation from Iran that puts American troops and citizens across the Middle East in harm's way,' said Raed Jarrar, DAWN's Advocacy Director. 'Congress should immediately pass a War Powers Resolution to prohibit further U.S. military involvement, even in the event of retaliation. We need de-escalation, not more bombs.'
'Trump has completely folded to Netanyahu, dragging the U.S. into a war that undermines American interests,' said Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man, Israel-Palestine Director at DAWN. 'The UN General Assembly should immediately pass a 'Uniting for Peace' resolution to hold both Israel and the U.S. accountable and demand an end to this regime-change campaign.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
US attack on Iran will worsen conflict: prof
The United States attacks on three principal nuclear sites in Iran will likely worsen conflict in the Middle-East, the University of Otago's leading international relations academic says. It comes after US President Donald Trump confirmed yesterday that US forces struck Iran's three principal nuclear sites: Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow — six bunker buster bombs were dropped on Fordow, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against other nuclear sites. University of Otago international relations Professor Robert Patman said that it would be naive to assume this attack would lead to any wind-down of the conflict. "I think it's reflective of the fact that Mr Trump and his administration are living in something of a bubble. "The idea that Iran is going to roll over after being hit by six bunker buster bombs and about 30 cruise missiles I think is fantasy. "I think this whole operation is based on a very shaky operating assumption that you can eliminate the threat by bombing it away." Prof Patman said Iran, over the years, had "never said it wants nuclear weapons". "It says it wants what many other countries have, which is a civilian nuclear energy generation capacity." Mr Trump was dealing with a "crisis of his own making". "He had a perfectly workable deal called the US-Iran nuclear deal, which was negotiated by the Obama administration, but Mr Trump proceeded to walk away from that — and of course, Iran no longer felt bound by its terms." Iran had the knowledge to reconstruct its nuclear capability if it so desired, Prof Patman said. "We have knowledge that most of the material at these sites was evacuated sometime ago. "So have the US just used very expensive bombs to little effect? "We don't know," he said. "I think many Middle Eastern countries will be pretty upset with Mr Trump because this could become a region-wide conflict now, particularly if the Iranian leadership decide they're going to make his life very difficult by targeting American personnel and interests." Prof Patman called the strikes against Iran "likely illegal". "Iran has said repeatedly that it is a victim in this situation. It's not the aggressor. "As the victim, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, it's got the right of self-defence," he said. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins said yesterday the government was pursuing all options for assisting New Zealanders stranded in Iran and Israel. As part of government efforts to pursue all options for assisting New Zealanders in harm's way, government personnel and a C-130J Hercules aircraft are being deployed to the Middle East and will stand ready to assist if needed. The government was also in discussion with commercial airlines to assess how they may be able to assist. The situation in the Middle East was "fast-moving" and it will take several days for the C-130J Hercules, scheduled to leave Auckland today, to reach the region, they said. Mr Peters called for "diplomacy", saying that would be the path to peace in the Middle East — not further "military action". There were estimated to be about 50 New Zealanders in Iran and 80 in Israel, he said. Last week, the last remaining New Zealand diplomats in Iran fled the country after the government made repeated calls for New Zealanders to stay out of Iran. Meanwhile, all New Zealanders in the Middle East — not just in Iran and Israel — were urged to register on SafeTravel. Prof Patman said while these initiatives were good and necessary, New Zealand could be doing far more on a world stage. "New Zealand has got an international reputation for, first of all, wanting the abolition of nuclear weapons, but also for pursuing its own non-nuclear security policy. "This US attack on Iran, in my view, is a reckless and illegal act — it's likely to make the world less secure rather than more secure. "It's time for New Zealand to press for the reform of the UN Security Council. "The UN Security Council should not be a bystander because one of its key members is breaking international law."
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Censoring signs Trump's attempt to rewrite history
US President Donald Trump has banned "negative" signage at national parks and is asking visitors to snitch on unpatriotic text, reports Jack Dolan, of the Los Angeles Times . In his ongoing war on "woke" culture, United States President Donald Trump has instructed the National Park Service to scrub any language he would deem negative, unpatriotic or smacking of "improper partisan ideology" from signs and presentations visitors encounter at national parks and historic sites. Instead, his administration has ordered the national parks and hundreds of other monuments and museums supervised by the Department of the Interior to ensure all of their signage reminds Americans of our "extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity and human flourishing". Those marching orders, which went into effect the week before last, have left Trump opponents and free speech advocates gasping in disbelief, wondering how park employees are supposed to put a sunny spin on monuments acknowledging slavery and Jim Crow laws. And how they will square the story of Japanese Americans shipped off to incarceration camps during World War 2 with an "unmatched record of advancing liberty". At Manzanar National Historic Site, a dusty encampment in the high desert of eastern California, one of 10 camps where more than 120,000 Japanese American civilians were imprisoned during the early 1940s, employees have put up a required notice describing the changes. Like all such notices across the country, it includes a QR code visitors can use to report any signs they see that are "negative about either past or living Americans or that fail to emphasise the beauty, grandeur, and abundance of landscapes". An identical sign is up at the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument in Kern County, a tribute to the struggle to ensure better wages and safer working conditions for immigrant farm labourers. Such signs are going up across the sprawling system, which includes Fort Sumter National Monument, where Confederates fired the first shots of the Civil War; Ford's Theater National Historic Site in Washington, DC, where Abraham Lincoln was assassinated; and the Martin Luther King jun National Historic Park. So, nothing negative about John Wilkes Booth or James Earl Ray? In response to an email requesting comment, a National Park Service spokesperson did not address questions about specific parks or monuments, saying only that changes would be made "where appropriate". The whole thing was "flabbergasting," said Dennis Arguelles, Southern California director for the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association. "These stories may not be flattering to American heritage, but they're an integral part of our history. "If we lose these stories, then we're in danger of repeating some of these mistakes," Arguelles said. Trump titled his March 27 executive order requiring federal sign writers to look on the bright side "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History". He specifically instructed the Interior Department to scrutinise any signs put up since January 2020 — the beginning of the Biden administration — for language that perpetuates "a false reconstruction" of American history. Trump called out signs that "undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light". He specifically cited the National Historical Park in Philadelphia and the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC as bowing to what he described as the previous administration's zeal to cast "our Nation's unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness" as "inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed". His solution? Order federal employees and historians to rewrite the "revisionist" history with language that exudes patriotism. "It all seems pretty Orwellian," said Kimbrough Moore, a rock climber and Yosemite National Park guide book author. After news of the impending changes began circulating in park circles, he posted on Instagram a sign he saw in the toilet at the Porcupine Flat campground in the middle of the park. Across from the ubiquitous sign in all park bathrooms that says "Please DO NOT put trash in toilets, it is extremely difficult to remove", someone added a placard that reads "Please DO NOT put trash in the White House, it is extremely difficult to remove". Predictably, the post went viral. "Even the pooper can be a venue for resistance," Moore wrote. — TCA
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Donald Trump targets Iran's nuclear programme with B-2 bomber strikes
He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 US troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques – terrorism, hostage-taking and cyber attacks – as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear programme. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast programme underground. That is why Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordo, the facility Iran built in secret in the mid-2000s that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Trump's aides were telling those allies on Saturday night (UST) that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear programme. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. But, the diplomat added, bin Laden had killed 3000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of pre-emption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night (UST), flanked by Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defenve Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' the President said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill'. In essence, Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Rubio emphasised that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran', adding that the United States was 'not involved'. But then, a few days ago, Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the US to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, any time he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the US was all-in and that, contrary to Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness – the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the October 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear programme as Iran's ultimate defence. It was always more than just a scientific project – it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Along with the repression of dissent, the programme had become the ultimate means of defence for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear programme has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day, historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordo. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Trump's gamble paid off. His critics in Congress were already questioning his approach. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had acted 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community' that Iran had made no decision to take the final steps to a bomb. If Iran finds itself unable to respond effectively, if the Ayatollah's hold on power is now loosened, or if the country gives up its long-running nuclear ambitions, Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America's military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky. But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies Sunday morning. This article originally appeared in the New York Times. Written by: David E. Sanger Photographs by: Carlos Barria / Getty Images ©2025 NEW YORK TIMES
