Latest news with #Israel-led
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Memo: US faces sea of risk if Trump presses ahead with Iran attack
President Trump looked to be on the cusp of deciding whether to join Israel's attack on Iran on Wednesday. Trump told reporters at the White House that he had 'ideas' of what he wanted to do but had not reached a definitive conclusion. In general, he said, he likes 'to make a final decision one second before it's due.' Late Wednesday afternoon, The Wall Street Journal reported that, the previous day, Trump had told senior aides he had signed off on plans to attack Iran but had not ordered those plans be put fully into motion until he saw whether Iran would abandon its nuclear program. Iran has vigorously defended its right to continue enriching uranium, even as the nation's leaders have insisted the substance is intended only for civilian use. The political push and pull over whether U.S. forces should directly participate in the Israel-led assault is intense. It has huge stakes for the region at large — and perhaps for Trump's presidency as well. On a purely practical level, it has been widely reported that Israel needs direct American assistance to accomplish even its most short-term goal of destroying the Iranian nuclear program. One of the key Iranian enrichment facilities, at Fordow, is built into a mountain. Destroying it likely requires the use of enormous bunker buster 30,000-pound bombs, which only the U.S. possesses or has a plane capable of transporting them: the B-2 bomber. Many voices in Trump's party support muscular American backing for its Middle East ally, with figures like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at the fore in making that argument. But in the wider Make America Great Again (MAGA) world, there are voices who are highly skeptical of such an enterprise. The divide was shown to dramatic effect in a long and contentious interview between Cruz and Tucker Carlson on the topic, which went viral Wednesday. Carlson is perhaps the most influential figure warning against the U.S. getting sucked into another major foreign conflict after years of being mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. The arguments of the pro-war side extend beyond merely the standard U.S. support to Israel, which has long relied on a gusher of American military aid. Proponents say Iran is at a key crossroads, unusually dangerous because of the relatively short time it would hypothetically need to become a nuclear power, but unusually weak because of the series of setbacks suffered by its proxies and those to whom it was sympathetic: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the now-toppled regime of former President Bashar Assad in Syria. But if some people see a rare window of opportunity to topple the theocrats who have run Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, others warn about the sheer scale of the risks. One obvious issue is the potential vulnerability of U.S. troops elsewhere in the region if American forces attack Iran directly. There are an estimated 13,500 U.S. service members in Kuwait, 10,000 in Qatar, 9,000 in Bahrain and 2,500 still in Iraq, The New York Times estimated Wednesday. All would be in close range of Iran. Of course, those troops will all be on heightened alert and are well fortified. But the loss of any U.S. lives at all could change the political dynamics for Trump at home. Back in 1980, then-President Carter suffered a disaster in the Iranian desert when an attempt to rescue hostages failed. Several helicopters used in the covert mission failed and eight U.S. service members were killed. The circumstances were admittedly very different, but the fact remains that the loss of American lives can easily become politically catastrophic. Then there are the economic effects of an all-out war to consider. The price of oil has climbed roughly 10 percent over the past week. A sustained price rise will be a drag on industry and a driver of inflation. The Strait of Hormuz, which passes along the Iranian coast, is a conduit for about one-fifth of global oil supplies. Another huge question: What would be the objective of an American assault? Would it be simply to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities or would it be aimed at toppling the regime? If the latter is the real objective, there are a multitude of complications. Even though many Iranians are unhappy with the leadership of the mullahs, that does not mean they would welcome Washington toppling them, especially at the behest of the hated Israel. Who would replace the current leadership, and what legitimacy would the new leadership have? How would a new government even be arrived at? And, if that process proved tortuous and violent, what role could the U.S. have in trying to pacify a nation of almost 90 million people? None of it seems appealing to many of the Trump voters who grew tired of what MAGA figures like Steve Bannon call 'forever wars' elsewhere. Meanwhile, even if the U.S. did have more modest objectives, pertaining to the destruction of nuclear capability, the Iranians could rebuild that over time. Indeed, Iranians might well consider it an imperative to do so at full velocity — if they come to see the failure to acquire nuclear weapons as one reason their enemies felt at liberty to attack in the first place. To be sure, many worst-case scenarios might not come to pass. But there are more than enough factors to give Americans serious pause for thought as Trump considers his next move. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The Memo: US faces sea of risk if Trump presses ahead with Iran attack
President Trump looked to be on the cusp of deciding whether to join Israel's attack on Iran on Wednesday. Trump told reporters at the White House that he had 'ideas' of what he wanted to do but had not reached a definitive conclusion. In general, he said, he likes 'to make a final decision one second before it's due.' Late on Wednesday afternoon, the Wall Street Journal reported that, the previous day, Trump had told senior aides that he had signed off on plans to attack Iran but had not ordered those plans put fully into motion until he saw whether Iran would abandon its nuclear program. Iran has vigorously defended its right to continue enriching uranium, even as the nation's leaders have insisted the substance is intended only for civilian use. The political push and pull over whether U.S. forces should directly participate in the Israel-led assault is intense. It has huge stakes for the region at large, and perhaps for Trump's presidency as well. On a purely practical level, it has been widely reported that Israel needs direct American assistance to accomplish even its most short-term goal of destroying the Iranian nuclear program. One of the key Iranian enrichment facilities, at Fordow, is built into a mountain. Destroying it likely requires the use of enormous 'bunker buster' 30,000-lb bombs which only the U.S. possesses or has a plane capable of transporting: the B-2 bomber. Many voices in Trump's party support muscular American backing for its Middle East ally, with figures like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to the fore in making that argument. But in the wider Make America Great Again (MAGA) world, there are voices who are highly skeptical of such an enterprise. The divide was shown to dramatic effect in a long and contentious interview between Cruz and Tucker Carlson on the topic which went viral on Wednesday. Carlson is perhaps the most influential figure warning against the U.S. getting sucked into another major foreign conflict after years of being mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. The arguments of the pro-war side extend beyond merely the standard U.S. support to Israel, which has long relied on a gusher of American military aid. Proponents say Iran is at a key crossroads – unusually dangerous because of the relatively short time it would hypothetically need to become a nuclear power, but unusually weak because of the series of setbacks suffered by its proxies and those to whom it was sympathetic: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the now-toppled regime of former President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. But if some people see a rare window of opportunity to topple the theocrats who have run Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, others warn about the sheer scale of the risks. One obvious issue is the potential vulnerability of U.S. troops elsewhere in the region if American forces attack Iran directly. There are an estimated 13,500 U.S. forces in Kuwait, 10,000 in Qatar, 9,000 in Bahrain and 2,500 still in Iraq, The New York Times estimated on Wednesday. All would be in close range of Iran. Of course, those troops will all be on heightened alert and are well fortified. But the loss of any U.S. lives at all could change the political dynamics for Trump at home. Back in 1980, then-President Carter suffered a disaster in the Iranian desert when an attempt to rescue hostages failed. Several helicopters used in the covert mission failed and eight U.S. service members were killed. The circumstances were admittedly very different, but the fact remains that the loss of American lives can easily become politically catastrophic. Then there are the economic effects of an all-out war to consider. The price of oil has climbed roughly 10 percent over the past week. A sustained price rise will be a drag on industry and a driver of inflation. The Strait of Hormuz, which passes along the Iranian coast, is a conduit for about one-fifth of global oil supplies. Another huge question: What would be the objective of an American assault? Would it be simply to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities or would it be aimed at toppling the regime? If the latter is the real objective, there are a multitude of complications. Even though many Iranians are unhappy with the leadership of the mullahs, that does not mean they would welcome Washington toppling them, especially at the behest of the hated Israel. Who would replace the current leadership, and what legitimacy would the new leadership have? How would a new government even be arrived at? And, if that process proved tortuous and violent, what role could the U.S. have in trying to pacify a nation of almost 90 million people? None of it seems appealing to many of the Trump voters who grew tired of what MAGA figures like Steve Bannon call 'forever wars' elsewhere. Meanwhile, even if the U.S. did have more modest objectives, pertaining to the destruction of nuclear capability, the Iranians could rebuild that over time. Indeed, Iranians might well consider it an imperative to do so at full velocity — if they come to see the failure to acquire nuclear weapons as one reason their enemies felt at liberty to attack in the first place. To be sure, many worst-case scenarios might not come to pass. But there are more than enough factors to give Americans serious pause for thought as Trump considers his next move. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Khamenei tells US that Iran won't surrender to Israel
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said his country won't surrender to Israel after U.S. President Donald Trump called for the Islamic Republic's capitulation amid growing speculation that Washington could enter the conflict. "The Americans should know that the Iranian nation is not one to surrender," Khamenei said in a statement published on his official website, He warned that if the U.S. joined Israel's military offensive, it would see "irreparable damage." Khamenei also said he opposed an "imposed peace," suggesting he would not engage in any U.S. or Israel-led efforts to force Iran into accepting a ceasefire. Khamenei's latest comments, which were originally scheduled to be televised, come a day after Trump said he knows where the supreme leader is "hiding" and also called for Iran's surrender. On Tuesday, Trump and his national security team had a meeting that lasted more than hour, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu afterward, a White House official said. No further official comments were made. Israel started its military strikes on Iran last Friday and has hit scores of targets in residential and commercial areas of the capital Tehran as well as nuclear facilities, gas fields and oil refineries. In response Iran has fired hundreds of missiles at Israel, most of them targeting Tel Aviv. So far, at least 224 Iranians have been killed by Israel's attacks and 24 Israelis have been killed by Iran's strikes, according to government figures from both countries. The White House has said Trump will meet Pakistan's army chief on Wednesday. The South Asian country - a key ally of Iran - has expressed a willingness to play a role as a mediator between the U.S. and Iran. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said Monday Iran is open to resuming talks about its atomic activities if Israel refrains from further strikes, citing direct communication with his counterpart in Tehran. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Khamenei Tells US That Iran Won't Surrender to Israel
(Bloomberg) -- Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that his country won't surrender to Israel after US President Donald Trump called for the Islamic Republic's capitulation amid growing speculation that Washington could enter the conflict. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' How E-Scooters Conquered (Most of) Europe JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown 'The Americans should know that the Iranian nation is not one to surrender,' Khamenei said in a statement published on his official website, He warned that if the US joined Israel's military offensive, it would see 'irreparable damage.' Khamenei also said that he opposed an 'imposed peace,' suggesting that he would not engage in any US or Israel-led efforts to force Iran into accepting a ceasefire. Khamenei's latest comments, which were originally scheduled to be televised, come a day after Trump said in social media posts that he knows where Khamenei is 'hiding' and also called for Iran's surrender. Overnight on Tuesday, Trump and his national security team had a meeting that lasted more than hour, according to people familiar with the matter, amid speculation that the US may join Israel's military action. Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu afterward, a White House official said. No further official comments were made. Israel started its military strike on Iran last Friday and has hit scores of targets in residential and commercial areas of the capital Tehran as well as nuclear facilities, gas fields and oil refineries. In response Iran has fired hundreds of missiles at Israel, most of them targeting Tel Aviv. So far, at least 224 Iranians have been killed by Israel's attacks and 24 Israelis have been killed by Iran's strikes, according to government figures from both countries. (Updates with more comments from Khamenei. An earlier version was corrected to say the conflict is entering its sixth day rather than the fifth.) Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Mark Cuban Has Done Sports, Reality TV and Now Health Care. Why Not US President? How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
