Latest news with #ObamaAdministration
New York Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
The Israel-Iran Conflict
Israel calls its attack on Iran's nuclear program a justified response to an existential threat: Benjamin Netanyahu argues that Iran's leaders should be taken at their word when they say they wish to wipe his country off the map. So Israel has spent the last several days razing Iran's nuclear structures and killing the people in charge of them; more than 200 people have died, according to the Iranian health ministry. Iran has been shooting back, blowing up buildings in Tel Aviv; at least 24 people have died, according to Israel. Why are these two nations in this mess? Iran watched the United States fell governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government believes nuclear bombs (and the threat that it could use them) will protect it, just as they have protected North Korea. Israel does not believe in the power of diplomacy to solve this existential threat. North Korea has been tolerated as a rogue regime with nuclear bombs because nations assume Kim Jong-un won't use them. But Israel and its supporters treat Iran as uniquely irrational. Netanyahu saw a previous deal as vulnerable to cheating, and he struck Iran last week while President Trump was negotiating a new one. But military intervention has its problems, too. Today's newsletter is about that puzzle. The talking cure American presidents have chased a nuclear deal and asked Israel for restraint. The agreement struck in the last years of the Obama administration did not meet Netanyahu's very high bar — the total elimination of Iran's nuclear program — but it put inspectors on the ground to ensure Iran halted development. In exchange, Western nations loosened sanctions and unfroze Iran's assets. But even the most ardent proponents of Obama's deal had to admit that it was a temporary measure to hold off Iranian nuclear ambitions for a decade, with the hope that something — anything — would follow. By most accounts, Iran was abiding by the terms, but Trump shredded the agreement in his first term, promising in this term that he would deliver something more secure. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
West Australian
4 days ago
- Politics
- West Australian
Donald Trump's Iran choice: Last-chance diplomacy or a bunker-busting bomb, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator
WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump is weighing a critical decision in the days-old war between Israel and Iran: whether to enter the fray by helping Israel destroy the deeply buried nuclear enrichment facility at Fordo, which only America's biggest 'bunker buster,' dropped by US B-2 bombers, can reach. If he decides to go ahead, the United States will become a direct participant in a new conflict in the Middle East, taking on Iran in exactly the kind of war Mr Trump has sworn, in two campaigns, he would avoid. Iranian officials have warned that US participation in an attack on its facilities will imperil any remaining chance of the nuclear disarmament deal that Mr Trump insists he is still interested in pursuing. Mr Trump has encouraged Vice President JD Vance and his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, to offer to meet the Iranians this week, according to a US official. The offer may be well received, and Mr Trump said Monday that 'I think Iran basically is at the negotiating table, they want to make a deal.' The urgency appeared to be rising. The White House announced late Monday that Mr Trump was leaving the Group of 7 summit early because of the situation in the Middle East. 'As soon as I leave here, we're going to be doing something,' Mr Trump said. 'But I have to leave here.' What he intended to do remained unclear. If Mr Vance and Mr Witkoff did meet with the Iranians, officials say, the likely Iranian interlocutor would be the country's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, who played a key role in the 2015 nuclear deal with the Obama Administration and knows every element of Iran's sprawling nuclear complex. Mr Araghchi, who has been Mr Witkoff's counterpart in recent negotiations, signalled his openness to a deal Monday, saying in a statement, 'If President Trump is genuine about diplomacy and interested in stopping this war, next steps are consequential.' 'It takes one phone call from Washington to muzzle someone like Netanyahu,' he said, referring to the Israeli Prime Minister. 'That may pave the way for a return to diplomacy.' But if that diplomatic effort fizzles, or the Iranians remain unwilling to give in to Mr Trump's central demand that they must ultimately end all uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, the President will still have the option of ordering that Fordo and other nuclear facilities be destroyed. There is only one weapon for the job, experts contend. It is called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or the GBU-57, and it weighs so much — 30,000 pounds — that it can be lifted only by a B-2 bomber. Israel does not own either the weapon or the bomber needed to get it aloft and over a target. If Mr Trump holds back, it could well mean that Israel's main objective in the war is never completed. 'Fordo has always been the crux of this thing,' said Brett McGurk, who worked on Middle East issues for four successive US presidents, from George W. Bush to Joe Biden. 'If this ends with Fordo still enriching, then it's not a strategic gain.' That has been true for a long time, and over the past two years the US military has refined the operation, under close White House scrutiny. The exercises led to the conclusion that one bomb would not solve the problem; any attack on Fordo would have to come in waves, with B-2s releasing one bomb after another down the same hole. And the operation would have to be executed by an American pilot and crew. This was all in the world of war planning until the opening salvos Friday morning in Tehran, Iran's capital, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the strikes, declaring that Israel had discovered an 'imminent' threat that required 'preemptive action.' New intelligence, he suggested without describing the details, indicated that Iran was on the cusp of turning its fuel stockpile into weapons. US intelligence officials who have followed the Iranian program for years agree that Iranian scientists and nuclear specialists have been working to shorten the time it would take to manufacture a nuclear bomb, but they saw no huge breakthroughs. Yet they agree with Mr McGurk and other experts on one point: If the Fordo facility survives the conflict, Iran will retain the key equipment it needs to stay on a pathway to the bomb, even if it would first have to rebuild much of the nuclear infrastructure that Israel has left in ruins over four days of precision bombing. There may be other alternatives to bombing it, though they are hardly a sure thing. If the power to Fordo gets cut, by saboteurs or bombing, it could damage or destroy the centrifuges that spin at supersonic speeds. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Monday that this might have happened at the country's other major uranium enrichment centre, Natanz. Israel took out the power supplies to the plant Friday, and Mr Grossi said that the disruption probably sent them spinning out of control. Mr Trump rarely talks about Fordo by name, but he has occasionally alluded to the GBU-57, sometimes telling aides that he ordered its development. That is not correct: The United States began designing the weapon in 2004, during the Bush Administration, specifically to collapse the mountains protecting some of the deepest nuclear facilities in Iran and North Korea. It was, however, tested during Mr Trump's first term, and added to the arsenal. Mr Netanyahu has pressed for the United States to make its bunker busters available since the Bush Administration, so far to no avail. But people who have spoken to Mr Trump in recent months say the topic has come up repeatedly in his conversations with the Prime Minister. When Mr Trump has been asked about it, he usually avoids a direct answer. Now the pressure is on. Former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who resigned in a split with Mr Netanyahu, told CNN's Bianna Golodryga on Monday that 'the job has to be done, by Israel, by the United States,' an apparent reference to the fact that the bomb would have to be dropped by an American pilot in a US airplane. He said that Mr Trump had 'the option to change the Middle East and influence the world.' And Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who often speaks for the traditional, hawkish members of his party, said on CBS on Sunday that 'if diplomacy is not successful' he will 'urge President Trump to go all in to make sure that, when this operation is over, there's nothing left standing in Iran regarding their nuclear program.' 'If that means providing bombs, provide bombs,' he said, adding, in a clear reference to the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, 'whatever bombs. If it means flying with Israel, fly with Israel.' But Republicans are hardly united in that view. And the split in the party over the decision of whether to make use of one of the Pentagon's most powerful conventional weapons to help one of America's closest allies has highlighted a far deeper divide. It is not only about crippling the centrifuges of Fordo; it is also about MAGA's view of what kinds of wars the United States should avoid at all costs. The anti-interventionist wing of the party, given its most prominent voice by influential podcaster Tucker Carlson, has argued that the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that there is nothing but downside risk in getting deeply into another Middle East war. On Friday, Carlson wrote that the United States should 'drop Israel' and 'let them fight their own wars.' 'If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so,' he continued. 'It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases. But not with America's backing.' At the Pentagon, opinion is divided for other reasons. Elbridge A. Colby, the undersecretary of defence for policy, the Pentagon's No. 3 post, has long argued that every military asset devoted to the wars of the Middle East is one diverted from the Pacific and the containment of China. (Mr Colby had to amend his views on Iran somewhat to get confirmed.) For now, Mr Trump can afford to keep one foot in both camps. By making one more run at coercive diplomacy, he can make the case to the MAGA faithful that he is using the threat of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator to bring the conflict to a peaceful end. And he can tell the Iranians that they are going to cease enriching uranium one way or the other, either by diplomatic agreement or because a GBU-57 imploded the mountain. But if the combination of persuasion and coercion fails, he will have to decide whether this is Israel's war or America's. This article originally appeared in The New York Times . © 2025 The New York Times Company
New York Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Radiation Risk From Israel's Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites Is Low, for Now
Strikes on any nuclear facilities could, in theory, release clouds of deadly radiation that endanger human lives and health. But in the case of Israel's attacks on Iran overnight on Friday, that appears so far to not have been the case. The earliest attacks and targets seem for the moment to rule out the most dangerous outcomes, limiting possible radiation threats to the realm of the relatively minor. The most dangerous kind of threat would arise from successful attacks on nuclear reactors. Over time, the splitting of atoms in reactor fuel results in buildups of highly radioactive spinoffs. Among the worst are Cesium 137, Strontium 90 and Iodine 131. If Iodine 131 is inhaled or ingested, it ends up in a person's thyroid gland. There, its intense radioactivity raises dramatically the risk of thyroid cancer, particularly in children. The other isotopes can also result in cancers. But so far, no reports or evidence suggest that Iran's nuclear reactors were hit in the Israeli attacks. Apparently spared were a power plant on the Persian Gulf, a research reactor in Tehran and a heavily guarded site ringed by antiaircraft weapons and miles of barbed wire. Known as Arak, that isolated complex was long suspected of being built to produce plutonium, one of the two main fuels for atom bombs. But the Obama administration's 2015 deal with Iran turned the complex into a nuclear relic unusable for that purpose. The Arak reactor never came to life. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Militarization of Civil Protest: Napolitano on Trump, LA Protests
Janet Napolitano, former Homeland Security Secretary under the Obama Administration and former Governor of Arizona, weighs in on the Los Angeles protests and the 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 US Marines in the city and what she would have done if the President asked her to deploy these troops. Janet also talks about whether or not what is happening in Los Angeles justifies needing more ICE and Border Patrol agents. She speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on the late edition of Bloomberg's "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)
E&E News
09-06-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
Interior revokes Biden-era encouragement of LGBTQ+ Pride participation
New guidance from the Interior Department is discouraging National Park Service employees from participating in LQBTQ+ Pride month activities or posting about them on official social media. In a May 30 memo, the Interior Department's Civil Rights Office revoked guidance from Interior Secretary Deb Haaland last year encouraging bureaus to allow staff to participate ind 'special emphasis months.' The Haaland memo had cleared the way for park rangers to wear their uniforms during Pride parades and other events. She issued the guidance after a top NPS official in May 2024 sent a memo telling staffers that agency policies barred them from attending events in uniform supporting a 'particular issue, position or political party.' Subsequent guidance made clear that included representing NPS at Pride events. Advertisement Acting director of the Office of Civil Rights, Shayan Modarres, eliminated Haaland's guidance in the May 30 memo. The memo also disbanded a committee created during the Obama administration to guide agency participation in 'special emphasis' months, which has included LGBTQ+ Pride month in June. 'The Department of Interior renews its commitment to implement any Special Emphasis Programs in a manner that does not discriminate based on race, sex, color, religion, or national origin in any program,' Modarres wrote in the brief directive. 'This memorandum supersedes all previous Directives on this subject.' The National Park Service did not respond to requests for comment for this story. The new direction from the Trump administration doesn't explicitly discourage Pride participation for park rangers or other Interior employees, but it's been interpreted that way by many park staffers, according to internal emails and messages viewed by POLITICO's E&E News. Some park rangers say the guidance has discouraged them from participating in Pride festivities in their local communities or posting about Pride on their park's social media sites, as they've done in previous years. 'Everyone is extremely on edge,' said one transgender park ranger who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press. 'There's definitely an atmosphere of fear and control.' As with the rest of the federal government, the Trump administration has taken aim at the National Park Service's diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Under directives from the White House, NPS has also begun to change its telling of U.S. history. Earlier this year, the National Park Service heavily edited or eliminated webpages run by the agency that talked about transgender people, after President Donald Trump issued an executive order making it the position of the U.S. government to only acknowledge two genders. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also recently ordered new signs to go up at national parks encouraging visitors to report 'negative' depictions of U.S. history, a mandate that former park leaders say could pressure park rangers to change depictions of Indigenous, Black and LGBTQ+ history. The Trump administration's efforts have trickled down to other park decisions as well. NPS attempted to close Dupont Circle, a storied gathering point in Washington's gay rights history, during this weekend's WorldPride D.C. parade due to concerns about damage to park facilities, citing a recent executive order from Trump to increase law enforcement in the district. NPS reversed its position following community pushback, only fencing off the park's historic fountain. The new memo on special emphasis months pivots NPS to a potentially more conservative approach, one that discourages park officials from discussing subjects not directly related to their park's history. A June 3 email sent to NPS public information officers on the West Coast shared guidance from Aaron Roth, the Intermountain associate regional regional director for NPS, to limit social media posts and uniformed participation in special emphasis month events. The email noted that additional guidance from leadership, beyond the May 30 memo, is not expected. 'Without more detail, we recommend official/uniformed participation in celebratory activities, including social media posts, to be kept to events that relate closely to your park's specific mission [purpose],' the email states. Additionally, the email states 'There should be no official participation in parades associated with special emphasis months.' Park superintendents are granted discretion on whether a park should participate in an event, the email says, noting also that official participation in parades for national holidays is permitted. At a June 4 all-hands call with the service's communication staffers, employees were told they can continue to use social media to post about special emphasis months, as they have in previous years, according to one NPS staffer who was on that call. But the call has been interpreted slightly differently among NPS staffers. Following that call, a regional interpretations manager sent an email to NPS staffers in the South, explaining that 'monthly messaging themes still exist and are relevant for many parks, but there is no longer a broader mandate to communicate the monthly messaging.' They added: 'We are certainly not prohibited from discussing these topics IF they are directly relevant to our park significance, stories and documents.' The internal communications don't explicitly say the new guidance refers to Pride celebrations, but some staff are interpreting the guidance as directed at LGBTQ+ events because of the timing ahead of the start of Pride month. 'We've been told we can't make posts about quote, unquote, special emphasis months, but they didn't send that email out during Black History Month. So we know it's certainly for Pride Month,' the transgender NPS employee said. 'I'm assuming that marching in Pride parades is going to be a no-go.' Pride participation has been a flashpoint at the park service during both Democratic and Republican administrations. Last year, NPS Deputy Director Frank Lands effectively told park rangers not to march in Pride parades while in uniform, sparking pushback from park staff. Haaland intervened soon after, explicitly directing bureaus to decide when staff can wear their uniforms to special emphasis month events, including those celebrating LGBTQ+ people. Haaland ordered 'Bureau leaders or their designated officials to determine how and when bureaus should participate in these externally organized events. This could include marching units in parades, booths at parades, events etc. This would allow employees to participate in uniform representing their respective bureau.' The Trump administration memo revokes that guidance from Haaland. Jonathan Jarvis, who served as director of the NPS during the Obama administration, said questions about participating in Pride reprise with each change in administration. Jarvis said he strongly supports uniformed park rangers marching in parades 'when the event commemorates some component of American history related to park units such as the Civil Rights movement.' One NPS employee in the District of Columbia region, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press, noted that the question of how park rangers can celebrate Pride was 'much more of a kerfuffle' during the Biden administration, after Land's directive went out. Now the Trump administration's approach appears to be more about making life harder for employees of the federal government, that park staffer said, pointing to the administration's aggressive efforts to shrink the workforce. 'It seems honestly like less of an anti-Pride/anti-queer magnifying glass than just another part of the strategy of making employees feel scared and not providing them clear information, and degrading quality of life for federal employees,' the employee said. The staffer said the ultimate impact is a chilling effect on anyone wanting to participate in Pride events, celebrate it or post about it in official channels. 'It's a lot out of fear,' they said. 'There's mixed messages going around.'
