Netanyahu chose this war. Israel should finish the job itself.
Eliminating Iran's nuclear program is a goal most of the world should share, and countries in the region and beyond are cheering Israel's campaign to destroy it — many, though not all, in secret. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to want more than cheering, at least from the United States. America has the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, or MOP, that could burrow deep enough, and with enough firepower, to penetrate Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, as well as the B-2 stealth bombers to deliver it. President Donald Trump has sounded both warlike and diplomatic — issuing a statement of the diplomatic sort on Thursday — but he still appears to be weighing a direct U.S. strike in the coming weeks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Here's what a post-Ayatollah Iran could look like if war with Israel leads to regime's fall
As the Iranian regime reels from sustained Israeli strikes on military and nuclear infrastructure, debate is intensifying over what could come next. Experts say the end of the Islamic Republic is no longer unthinkable — but warn that what replaces it could either lift the country toward a freer future or plunge it into instability. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran and a prominent opposition figure, posted yesterday, "Sources inside Iran say that the regime's command and control structures are collapsing at a rapid pace. Meanwhile, the international community is beginning to realize that the Islamic Republic has no future. Our discussions about a post-Islamic Republic Iran have begun." "The first thing is revolution is too broad a word," said Behnam Taleblu, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. "The better words are evolution and devolution, meaning if you get something better or something worse. Because this is the Middle East, and fundamentally, things can get worse, not better, when you introduce an exogenous shock." Taleblu cautioned that both the Iranian opposition and Western governments have failed to prepare for regime collapse because of a long-standing reluctance to engage with the idea of regime change. "By not being able to articulate the necessary political strategy... we are most unprepared," he said. Beni Sabti, an Iran expert at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, sees four scenarios emerging from the current moment — one of which, he warns, is far worse than the others. "The Iranian people are currently leaderless, low-energy, and disillusioned since the women's protests," Sveti told Fox News Digital. "One scenario is collapse from within, similar to the Soviet Union. A brigade commander inside the Revolutionary Guards, supported by a circle of loyalists, could decide to rebel from within the regime." Sabti said that after Israel eliminated many Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) generals, Iran's regular army may now be better positioned to rise. "It might even align with disillusioned elements of the revolutionary guards," he said. "Because they know the system and its bureaucracy, insiders could quietly organize something from within. There would be casualties, but it could unfold as a relatively quiet historical event." Taleblu supports the idea that a regime transition could emerge from within, but notes that Iran has spent decades "coup-proofing." "It has promoted more based on zeal than capability. So it's less likely that you could have a classic military coup d'état emerge," he said. "That doesn't mean it can't happen, but it would take a significant amount of politicking and maneuvering." The second scenario Sabti outlined is a popular uprising sparked by the release of political prisoners. "There are many political leaders in Iranian prisons," he said. "If some are freed, they could rally the public. They were once part of the regime but tried to shift course and now support relations with the U.S. It would still be a very cold peace with Israel—but not hostile." Taleblu noted that Iranian society has already undergone a significant shift over the past decade. "Large swaths of the Iranian population—80% is probably a minimum number—hate this regime," he said. "The protests since 2017, especially 'Women, Life, Freedom,' were triggered not just by politics, but by economic, social, even environmental issues." A third possibility, Sabti said, is the return of exiled leaders. "There's deep romantic nostalgia toward the monarchy," he said. "Maybe in a later phase, if infighting breaks out, people might rally around a symbolic figure—'Come back and be a symbol.' That could strengthen the revolution." Taleblu acknowledged that figures like Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi could play a role, but not as rulers. "Think of the diaspora as a bridgehead into a new Iran—not the definers of the new Iran," he said. "The people inside Iran should be the ones shaping the next Iran." The fourth — and worst — scenario, according to Sabti, is that the regime survives. "That's the worst option," he said bluntly. Taleblu agreed, warning that survival would bring an even more repressive future. "If the Islamic Republic survives, it will survive in a more radical fashion—more military, less clergy," he said. "There's debate: does it become like Turkey or Pakistan, or does it become even more messianic? The older IRGC are corrupt; the younger ones are messianic." One of the most contentious questions looming over all these scenarios is the future role of Iran's non-Persian communities, including the Ahwazi, Baloch, Azeris, and Kurds. Aref Al-Kaabi, executive president of the State of Ahwaz, told Fox News Digital in a written statement that without trust-building between these communities and the Persian opposition, change will remain elusive. "In my opinion, regime change in Iran is possible if the following conditions are met: continued Israeli strikes... support for non-Persian components... international will... and bridges of trust between Arabs, Kurds, Baloch, Azeris, and the Persian opposition," Al-Kaabi said. "If these conditions are met, I believe the regime's fall will only be a matter of days." He said that in recent days, the IRGC launched widespread arrests in Ahwaz to prevent mobilization. "Most of those arrested are Arabs from Abadan, Bushehr, Sheyban, and Shoaibiya," he said. Al-Kaabi also criticized the Persian opposition abroad. "They view us—Arabs, Kurds, Azeris, Baloch—as separatists and refuse to work with us. That stubbornness is one of the main reasons the regime is still in power." Taleblu warned against Western attempts to divide the country. "The way to unite the Iranian population is not to talk about balkanization," he said. "That would be an own goal of moral and strategic proportions."
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Always a peacemaker': How Trump decided to hold off on striking Iran
By most accounts, President Donald Trump's attention for the past week has been consumed by the spiraling crisis playing out between Israel and Iran. In between meetings in Canada on Monday, he peppered aides for constant updates. He has spent more time in the basement Situation Room this week than at any point so far in his new presidency. So it was somewhat jarring Wednesday when the president emerged from the South Portico — not to provide an update on his crisis consultations, but to oversee the installation of two nearly 100-foot flagpoles. 'These are the best poles anywhere in the country, or in the world, actually. They're tapered. They have the nice top,' the president told a clutch of reporters and workmen. 'It's a very exciting project to me.' The break from his Iran meetings lasted about an hour, a moment for the president to literally touch grass on the South Lawn amid the most consequential period of decision-making of his term so far. A day later, the president decided not to decide. He dictated a statement to his press secretary Karoline Leavitt announcing he would hold off ordering a strike on Iran for up to two weeks to see if a diplomatic resolution was possible. The decision was revealed after another meeting in the Situation Room, where the president has spent much of this week reviewing attack plans and quizzing officials about the potential consequences of each. After steadily ratcheting up his martial rhetoric – including issuing an urgent warning to evacuate the 10 million residents of Iran's capital – Trump's deferment provides the president some breathing room as he continues to work through options presented by his military officials over the past several days. It also allows more time for the divergent factions of his own party to make their case directly to the president for and against a strike, as they have been urgently doing since it became clear Trump was seriously considering dropping bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. The president has refused to pick a side in public and spent the last week alternating between militaristic threats issued on social media and private concerns that a military strike he orders could drag the US into prolonged war. Around the Situation Room table, he has relied principally on his CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine to discuss his options, according to people familiar with the matter. His foreign envoy Steve Witkoff has been corresponding with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to determine if room exists to restart the diplomacy that had been deadlocked before Israel began its campaign last week. Other officials have been publicly sidelined. Twice this week, Trump has dismissed assessments previously offered by his Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about the state of Iran's program to develop a nuclear weapon. Gabbard testified in March that the US intelligence community had assessed Iran was not building such a weapon; Trump flatly and publicly disputed that Friday. 'Well then, my intelligence community is wrong,' Trump told reporters in New Jersey, asking the reporter who in the intelligence community had said that. Told that it was Gabbard, Trump responded, 'She's wrong.' Yet as he weighs taking action that could have consequences for years to come, Trump appears to be relying mostly on his own instincts, which this week told him to hit pause on ordering a strike that could alter global geopolitics for years to come. When top national security officials told Trump during a meeting at Camp David earlier this month that Israel was prepared to imminently strike inside Iran, it wasn't necessarily a surprise. Trump's advisers had been preparing for months for the possibility Israel could seize upon a moment of Iranian weakness — its regional proxies have been decimated over the past year — to launch a direct assault. Trump's team arrived at Camp David having already drawn up options for potential US involvement. According to people familiar with the matter, his advisers resolved differences between themselves in advance before presenting possible plans to the president. From the mountainside presidential retreat, Trump also spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who told the president he intended to begin a campaign in Iran imminently. Ten days later, with the Israeli campaign now in full swing, Trump was meeting in Canada with top American allies from the Group of 7, who hoped to decipher from him what the American plan was going forward. In closed-door meetings, leaders from Europe tried to ascertain whether Trump was inclined to order up a US strike on Fordow, the underground nuclear facility that has been the focus of attention for American war planners, western officials said. They also tried to convince a begrudging Trump to sign on to a joint statement, which urged that 'the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East.' Trump did not reveal his hand, either in private sessions with individual leaders or over dinner at the Kananaskis Country Golf Course, the western officials said. Instead, he left the summit early, leaving his counterparts in the Canadian Rockies and returning to Washington to deal with the matter himself. By midweek, with only vague signs from Iran that it was willing to restart talks, Trump's patience appeared to wearing thin for finding a diplomatic solution. And many of his allies believed he was on the verge of ordering a strike on Iran. 'It's very late, you know?' he said at Wednesday's flagpole event, the heat causing his forehead to glisten. 'It's very late to be talking.' In private meetings that day, Trump appeared convinced of the necessity of taking out the Fordow facility, according to people familiar with the conversations. And he said in public only the United States has the firepower to do it. 'We are the only ones who have the capability to do it, but that doesn't mean I am going to do it,' Trump said after coming back inside from his flag raising. 'I have been asked about it by everybody but I haven't made a decision.' He was speaking from the Oval Office, where he'd gathered players from the Italian soccer club Juventus to stand behind him. They mostly acted as a fidgeting backdrop to Trump's question-and-answer session on his Iran decision-making. At one point, Trump turned to the players amid a discussion of the B-2 stealth bomber — the only jet that could carry a bunker-busting bomb to destroy Iran's underground enrichment facility. 'You can be stealthy — you'll never lose, right?' he asked the team members, none of whom responded. 'It was a bit weird. When he started talking about the politics with Iran and everything, it's kind of, like… I just want to play football, man,' one of the players, Timothy Weah, said afterward. Amid the string of events, Trump continued to weigh the choices in front of him, and remained worried about a longer-term war. And he continued to receive messages from all sides of his political coalition, which has been divided over the wisdom of launching a strike that could embroil the US in a war for years to come. He's taken repeated calls from GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a prominent voice in support of striking Iran who described the president as 'very focused, very calm' after a Tuesday night phone call. 'I feel like when he says no nukes for Iran, he means it,' Graham said the next day. 'He gave them a chance for diplomacy. I think they made a miscalculation when it comes to President Trump.' One of the most prominent voices opposing a strike, his onetime top strategist Steve Bannon, was at the White House midday Thursday for a lunch with the president that had been rescheduled from several weeks ago. He revealed nothing of his conversation with Trump on his 'War Room' show later Thursday. But a day earlier, he told a roundtable that getting involved in a drawn-out conflict with Iran would amount to repeating a historic mistake. 'My mantra right now: The Israelis have to finish what they started,' he said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. 'We can't do this again. We'll tear the country apart. We can't have another Iraq.' For Trump, the swirl of options, opinions and advice is nothing new. He has faced the Iran decision much as he has most every other major choice of his presidency, by soliciting advice and trying to arrive at a solution that will please the widest swath of his supporters. The answer this time may not be as simple, nor does Trump hold all the cards in a conflict that is playing out across the world. Israel's decision to launch strikes a week ago — while not a surprise to the president — still came against his public entreaties to hold off. And in Iran, he is confronting an adversary with a long history of hardening its positions under pressure from the United States. As he was arriving Friday at his home in New Jersey, Trump said it would be hard to ask Netanyahu to ease up on strikes on Iran in order to pursue diplomacy, given Israel's success in the conflict so far. And he said the two-week window he set a day earlier was the maximum period of time he would allow for diplomacy to work, reserving the option of ordering a strike before that time is up. The president couldn't say whether the decision now in front of him is the biggest he'd face as president. But as he tries to find the balance between ending Iran's nuclear ambitions and keeping the US from war, he did offer an evaluation of what he wanted his legacy to be on the other side. 'Always a peacemaker,' he said. 'That doesn't mean — sometimes, you need some toughness to make peace. But always a peacemaker.'
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration almost totally dismantles Voice of America with latest terminations
The Trump administration has terminated 639 employees at Voice of America and its parent organization in the latest round of sweeping cuts that have reduced the international broadcasting service to a fraction of its former size. The mass terminations announced Friday rounds out the Trump-led elimination of 1,400 positions since March and represents the near-complete dismantling of an organization founded in 1942 to counter Nazi propaganda, whose first broadcast declared: 'We bring you voices from America.' Just 250 employees now remain across the entire parent group the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), who operated what was America's primary tool for projecting democratic values globally. 'For decades, American taxpayers have been forced to bankroll an agency that's been riddled with dysfunction, bias and waste. That ends now,' said Kari Lake, Trump's senior advisor to USAGM, in Friday's termination announcement. VOA once reached 360 million people weekly across dozens of languages, former USAGM CEO and director John Lansing told Congress in 2019. In March, the White House put out a statement calling the outlet 'propaganda', 'leftist' and dubbed it 'The Voice of Radical America'. One of the examples cited to justify that explanation was VOA's refusal to use the term 'terrorist' to describe members of Hamas unless in statements, which falls in line with common and basic journalistic practice. The cuts represent a major retreat from America's Cold War strategy of using broadcasting to reach audiences behind the iron curtain. VOA had evolved from its wartime origins to become a lifeline for populations living under authoritarian rule, providing independent news and an American perspective in regions where press freedom is under assault. The layoffs also came just days after VOA recalled Farsi-speaking journalists from administrative leave to cover the war between Israel and Iran, after Israel shot missiles at Tehran less than a week ago in the dead of night. 'It spells the death of 83 years of independent journalism that upholds US ideals of democracy and freedom around the world,' said three VOA journalists, Patsy Widakuswara, Jessica Jerreat and Kate Neeper, who are leading legal challenges against the demolition, in a statement. The agency's folding began in March when Trump signed an executive order targeting federal agencies he branded as bloated bureaucracy, and VOA staff were placed on paid leave and broadcasts were suspended. Lake, Trump's handpicked choice to run VOA, had previously floated plans to replace the service's professional journalism with content from One America News Network (OANN), a rightwing pro-Trump network that would provide programming without charge. The sole survivor of the cull is the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which transmits into Cuba from Florida. All 33 employees there remain, according to the announcement. USAGM offered voluntary departure packages through what it termed a 'Fork in the Road' program, providing full pay through September plus benefits. Some 163 employees accepted the buyouts rather than face involuntary termination, the agency said in a press release. Federal courts have allowed the administration to proceed with the terminations while legal challenges continue for now. The VOA cuts form part of Trump's broader assault on the federal workforce, with tens of thousands terminated across agencies including the IRS, Social Security Administration, USAID, and departments of education, health and agriculture.
