In Iran there is, so far, no sign of a mutinous mood
A sudden war made Iran's leaders look unprepared. And many Iranians loathe the regime. But there are no signs yet that internal dissent will shape the conflict. Shortly after Nayib Bukele became El Salvador's president, he was labelled as the world's first millennial dictator; now he is going after his critics. And remembering Valmik Thapar, tireless campaigner for India's tigers. Runtime: 23 min
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
15 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
NBC News
19 hours ago
- NBC News
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.
ITV News
a day ago
- ITV News
European talks with Iran end with no agreement to continue negotiations
Iran has confirmed to European ministers in Geneva on Friday night they will not hold peace talks with the US while the Israeli offensive between the Iranian foreign minister and the foreign ministers of the UK, France and Germany, plus the EU's High Representative, have broken up with no agreement on when or where follow up talks could take place and confirmation from the Iranian's they will not hold talks with the US while Israel continues to European 3and EU 1 told Iran's Abbas Araghchi that 'the threat of military action [from the US] is real and approaching but a diplomatic pathway remains open,' said a source. The four European, who included David Lammy fresh from his talks yesterday in the Whitehouse, made clear their 'long standing concerns about Iran's expansion of its nuclear programme, which has no credible civilian purpose and is in violation of almost all JCPoA provisions [the provisions of the last nuclear monitoring deal].'The Europeans said they wanted discussions to continue in the hope of finding g a negotiated solution but there was 'no agreement where or in what format'.The main standoff was the the Iranians said they could not seriously negotiate while Israel continued its offensive whereas the Europeans said a ceasefire could only happen if the Iranians come to the table for will brief US secretary of state Marco Rubio Ave special envoy Steve Witkoff about all this over the weekend.
