Latest news with #LindseyGraham
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Who's who in the secret group advising Trump on Iran - who has been left out of the planning?
President Donald Trump let it be known on Thursday that he will make a decision on whether to involve the U.S. in Israel's war with Iran within the next two weeks, as tensions over the question continue to divide conservatives. The president, who signed off on attack plans on Tuesday but resisted giving the go-ahead, is reportedly taking soundings from a small coterie of trusted advisers while also throwing the conversation open to fellow world leaders, as well as allies such as the hawkish Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Outside of his inner circle, MAGA personalities Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Steve Bannon, and Candace Owens have been speaking out against the prospect of the U.S. wading into another prolonged Middle Eastern war. At the same time, other Trump cheerleaders on Capitol Hill and the media have made the case for intervention. Here's a look at the people Trump is listening to, according to NBC News. Vice President Vance has previously struck a non-interventionist posture on foreign wars, notably opposing American support for Ukraine. He appears to favor a diplomatic solution to the dispute with Iran, applauding Trump for showing 'remarkable restraint' and making the safety of American troops and assets his top priority. The president's White House Chief of Staff and former campaign manager is known as the 'Ice Maiden' and regarded as an important restraining presence, in place to shield Trump from his own worst instincts. A senior adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, Miller is known as an anti-immigration hardliner and one of the faces of Trump's mass deportation push. A regular talking head on conservative media loathed by liberals, Miller has reportedly been nicknamed 'Weird Stephen' behind the scenes by the president, which does not suggest he commands the level of respect to which he aspires. Once a bitter enemy of Trump and rival for the Republican nomination, the Secretary of State now has such a full plate he has been dubbed the 'Secretary of Everything.' Rubio was out quickly last week to deny American involvement in Israel's initial onslaught but has since largely left the public messaging to the president. Trump's Middle East envoy, like him, a former luxury real estate developer, has led talks with both Israel and Iran since taking office earlier this year and, like Rubio, has cut a busy figure, also serving as the president's de facto liaison with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The lieutenant general serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff boasts the tough-guy nickname 'Razin' Caine' and previously served as a counterterrorism specialist to George W. Bush's Homeland Security Council. He reportedly first befriended Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2019 and impressed him by suggesting that Isis could be stamped out within a week. 'One week? I was told two years!' Trump marvelled. The head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is a career army officer who also has a cool nickname, 'The Gorilla.' He has reportedly been granted an unprecedented amount of leeway by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He has seen an increasing allocation of resources to his areas of responsibility, which include the Middle East. The CIA Director is an influential voice, having also served in the first Trump administration. He was previously a Texas congressman and a mayor of a small town. Two names conspicuous by their absence from that list are Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell has pushed back against the suggestion that Hegseth has been sidelined. 'This claim is completely false,' he told NBC. 'The secretary is speaking with the president multiple times a day, and has been with the president in the Situation Room this week. 'Secretary Hegseth is providing the leadership the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces need, and he will continue to work diligently in support of President Trump's peace through strength agenda.' Trump is meanwhile reported to have fallen out with Gabbard for going 'off-message' after she posted a video on X attacking the 'political elite and warmongers' for 'carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers' and placing the world 'on the brink of nuclear annihilation.' Asked by CNN's Kaitlan Collins aboard Air Force One about Gabbard's statement to Congress in March that, although Iran's enriched uranium levels are at an all-time high, the expert opinion is that Tehran is not currently seeking to develop a nuclear bomb. 'I don't care what she said,' the president snapped. 'I think they were very close to having a weapon.' One Trump supporter to deny any involvement in Trump's discussions about the conflict is MAGA die-hard Laura Loomer, who attacked former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson on X on Thursday night for reporting that she was playing an advisory role, dismissing the claim as 'fake news.'
Yahoo
a day 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.
Argaam
2 days ago
- Politics
- Argaam
US prepares for possible strike on Iran: Report
Senior US officials are preparing for a possible military strike against Iran in the coming days, as Washington readies its infrastructure for a potential confrontation with Tehran, Bloomberg reported early today, June 19, citing informed sources. The situation remains fluid and subject to change, the sources said, adding that a strike could potentially take place over the weekend. One source indicated that senior leaders across multiple US federal agencies have already begun preparations for the possible military action. This comes amid a notable shift in rhetoric from US President Donald Trump in recent days, as he has become increasingly open to military action, following warnings from allies that Iran may be close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina played a key role in urging the President to consider military options. Sources noted that Trump has held several phone calls with Graham. On Wednesday, June 18, Graham stated, 'He [Trump] gave them a chance for diplomacy. I think they made a miscalculation. The sooner we end this threat to mankind, the better.' However, opposition voices in Congress are growing louder, with several lawmakers stressing that the constitutional authority to declare war lies with the legislative branch—not the President. Earlier, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump approved plans for a potential strike on Iran but delayed making a final decision as he waits to see whether Tehran will abandon its nuclear program. According to the same report, the highly fortified Fordow nuclear facility, used by Iran for uranium enrichment, is among the potential targets under consideration.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
GOP senators back up Trump on Israel-Iran conflict as MAGA base splits on issue
Senate Republicans largely lined up behind President Donald Trump's handling of the conflict between Iran and Israel and said they trusted Trump's judgment on whether the United States ought to involve itself. Trump said again Wednesday that he has not decided whether the U.S. should get more involved in the He signaled to reporters that he would decide at the last moment, stating he'd make the decision 'one second before.' The issue of getting more involved in the conflict has divided Trump's MAGA base, with some pointing to his campaign promise to keep America out of foreign wars. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a defense hawk who said he spoke to Trump last night, endorsed the use of force if diplomatic efforts fail. "Either you want them to have a nuclear weapon, or you don't," Graham said. "And if you don't, if diplomacy fails, you use force." MORE: Israel and Iran are waging an existential battle. What does it mean for the US?: ANALYSIS Most Republicans said that they agreed with Trump that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. "I think this is something on which the entire world can agree: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, or the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead, period," Sen. John Kennedy said. "American foreign policy is always a balance between ... between values and interests. The value here is obvious to everyone. Iran cannot have a bomb. It's just unthinkable, and I support the president unconditionally on that," Kennedy said. Sen. Mike Rounds said there is evidence that Iran was getting closer to building a nuclear weapon. "If Israel has a plan which is appropriate to take care of the problem, then we don't need to be there, but we should never take or eliminate options that are available to the president in exercising his authority as the commander-in-chief," Rounds said. Sen. Kevin Cramer said he would support Trump's decision if he decided to enter the conflict, but would also support a decision to instead "assist Israel in getting the job done." "Iran's made that really crystal clear. They pledged to wipe out the United States of America. I prefer not to let them get here," Cramer said. "I prefer preemptive prevention of war rather than having to end one after it gets to our soil, right?" MORE: Israel-Iran live updates Cramer said Trump has been handling the crisis "brilliantly"and applauded Trump's suggestion that he may or may not get involved. "I think that's pretty honest, right? I may or I may not. I think that that the element of of surprise, if you will, is maintained by an answer that doesn't tell you what he's going to do," he said. "It'd be crazy for the president to give a warning, if you will, of what he may do." Both Republicans and Democrats said they would like Congress to have a role in determining whether the U.S. gets involved in the conflict, but Republicans were much less forceful. "I would love to see Congress have a role, but we certainly don't have time in the midst of what we all see going on for Congress to sit and cogitate for six or eight months," Kennedy said. Democrats, on the other hand, said Trump should get Congress' approval before taking any military action. MORE: Trump on his 'unconditional surrender' demand to Iran: 'I've had it' "At some point, the president must come to Congress if there is to be active, kinetic military involvement that constitutes war. That's the Constitution, Sen. Richard Blumenthal said. "And I believe that the president has to face accountability at some point, for the use of military force in combat, in a war. And the question is, when that point is." Other Democrats said the U.S. should be trying to de-escalate the conflict rather than inflame it. "We don't need to escalate in Iran. That doesn't make anyone in the Middle East safer, and it certainly doesn't make the United States any safer right now, Sen. Elizabeth Warren said. "The role of the United States should be to help de-escalate, to push for negotiations, not to try to set more things afire."
The Hill
2 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.
