Latest news with #neoconservatives
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Washington tells Trump after Iran strikes: No more ‘forever war'
The trauma of America's post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was evident in Washington on Sunday as Americans reckoned with the implications of Donald Trump's decision to launch strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Across the political spectrum, varying factions unified under the banner of opposition to the kind of nation-building ground assault that defined America's two wars launched by the Bush administration. It is the only area of agreement between a faction of progressives and pro-Trump paleoconservatives who opposed the U.S. becoming involved in what up until now had been an Israeli military campaign and their opponents, a waning neoconservative faction in Washington which has called for further escalation in the form of strikes against other facilities and targeted assassinations of Iranian political and military leadership. Sunday morning, the Trump administration publicly leaned towards the former group. Three top administration officials, Trump's vice president, Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, spoke to journalists and urged Iranian leaders to choose against responding to the U.S. strike. Pledging that the U.S. was not seeking to topple Iran's government, the trio left open an off-ramp as Vance claimed: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But both Democrats and Republican opponents of military force against Iran were smarting after Saturday night's attacks, and many cast doubt on the U.S.'s ability to avoid what Senator Jim Risch, one of the administration's defenders, said would be another 'forever war'. A number of Democrats urged more of their party to sign on to a resolution aimed at reining in the president's war powers. The resolution's lone Republican supporter, Rep. Thomas Massie, called on his party to do the same while condemning the influence of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, in a pair of interviews. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER,' wrote Trump on Truth Social, in a lengthy post against Massie. But for Democrats, the bombing of Iran represented an issue where common ground could be found. 'This is a defining moment for the Democratic party. We need to stand against war with Iran,' warned one of the resolution's co-sponsors, Rep. Ro Khanna. Rep. Adam Smith, one of the party's more centrist members who voted for the Iraq War in 2002, released a lengthy statement on Saturday for Trump's refusal to seek congressional authorization for the strikes. He also warned against the kind of Iraq-style intervention he once supported: 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous.' The effort to rein in Trump's military powers gained Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's support on Saturday as well. A strong supporter of Israel, Schumer nonetheless accused the administration of making 'erratic threats' and having 'no strategy'. 'The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now increased,' added the Senate Democratic leader. On the right, conservative supporters of the president who opposed Israel's sudden military strikes — which occurred during the first U.S-Iran talks in years — were furious and worried about the future of the White House's domestic agenda. Former congressman Matt Gaetz, speaking with . Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on his OANN show, accused Israel of seeking 'regime change' in Iran. He also tore into the Netanyahu government, accusing the prime minister of trying to avoid his own electoral defeat by getting the U.S. involved in his war and attacked Israel over the alleged existence of its own nuclear weapons program. Steve Bannon, writing on Gettr, derided Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for claiming Sunday that the U.S. still sought peace with Iran. 'Guys, please run this by [Benjamin] Netanyahu,' he quipped. Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, warned that it was now going to be extremely difficult for Trump to back the U.S. out of what it had started. 'Goal posts. Instantly moved,' Mills wrote as he reacted to calls for further strikes reportedly made on Israeli media. 'They're going to keep asking Trump to do much more, forever, until he or another American president Says No.' 'The goal posts will be moved until morale collapses,' he added: 'Every drop of juice is squeezed from Trump's political capital.' Even those who defended the administration's involvement in the Israeli military campaign were hesitant to endorse the kind of foreign military footprint that America sustained during the so-called War on Terror. Risch, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised the president's 'decisive action' in his own statement after previously writing in May that the administration should insist on 'full dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program', including civilian enrichment, during now-scuttled negotiations. 'This is Israel's war not our war,' the senator said. 'This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.'
The Independent
6 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Washington tells Trump after Iran strikes: No more ‘forever war'
The trauma of America's post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was evident in Washington on Sunday as Americans reckoned with the implications of Donald Trump's decision to launch strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Across the political spectrum, varying factions unified under the banner of opposition to the kind of nation-building ground assault that defined America's two wars launched by the Bush administration. It is the only area of agreement between a faction of progressives and pro-Trump paleoconservatives who opposed the U.S. becoming involved in what up until now had been an Israeli military campaign and their opponents, a waning neoconservative faction in Washington which has called for further escalation in the form of strikes against other facilities and targeted assassinations of Iranian political and military leadership. Sunday morning, the Trump administration publicly leaned towards the former group. Three top administration officials, Trump's vice president, Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, spoke to journalists and urged Iranian leaders to choose against responding to the U.S. strike. Pledging that the U.S. was not seeking to topple Iran's government, the trio left open an off-ramp as Vance claimed: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But both Democrats and Republican opponents of military force against Iran were smarting after Saturday night's attacks, and many cast doubt on the U.S.'s ability to avoid what Senator Jim Risch, one of the administration's defenders, said would be another 'forever war'. A number of Democrats urged more of their party to sign on to a resolution aimed at reining in the president's war powers. The resolution's lone Republican supporter, Rep. Thomas Massie, called on his party to do the same while condemning the influence of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, in a pair of interviews. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER,' wrote Trump on Truth Social, in a lengthy post against Massie. But for Democrats, the bombing of Iran represented an issue where common ground could be found. 'This is a defining moment for the Democratic party. We need to stand against war with Iran,' warned one of the resolution's co-sponsors, Rep. Ro Khanna. Rep. Adam Smith, one of the party's more centrist members who voted for the Iraq War in 2002, released a lengthy statement on Saturday for Trump's refusal to seek congressional authorization for the strikes. He also warned against the kind of Iraq-style intervention he once supported: 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous.' The effort to rein in Trump's military powers gained Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's support on Saturday as well. A strong supporter of Israel, Schumer nonetheless accused the administration of making 'erratic threats' and having 'no strategy'. 'The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now increased,' added the Senate Democratic leader. On the right, conservative supporters of the president who opposed Israel's sudden military strikes — which occurred during the first U.S-Iran talks in years — were furious and worried about the future of the White House's domestic agenda. Former congressman Matt Gaetz, speaking with . Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on his OANN show, accused Israel of seeking 'regime change' in Iran. He also tore into the Netanyahu government, accusing the prime minister of trying to avoid his own electoral defeat by getting the U.S. involved in his war and attacked Israel over the alleged existence of its own nuclear weapons program. Steve Bannon, writing on Gettr, derided Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for claiming Sunday that the U.S. still sought peace with Iran. 'Guys, please run this by [Benjamin] Netanyahu,' he quipped. Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, warned that it was now going to be extremely difficult for Trump to back the U.S. out of what it had started. 'Goal posts. Instantly moved,' Mills wrote as he reacted to calls for further strikes reportedly made on Israeli media. 'They're going to keep asking Trump to do much more, forever, until he or another American president Says No.' 'The goal posts will be moved until morale collapses,' he added: 'Every drop of juice is squeezed from Trump's political capital.' Even those who defended the administration's involvement in the Israeli military campaign were hesitant to endorse the kind of foreign military footprint that America sustained during the so-called War on Terror. Risch, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised the president's 'decisive action' in his own statement after previously writing in May that the administration should insist on 'full dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program', including civilian enrichment, during now-scuttled negotiations. 'This is Israel's war not our war,' the senator said. 'This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.'
Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
‘If Iran falls, we're next': What Russian experts and politicians are saying about the US strikes
On June 22, the United States, acting in support of its closest ally Israel, launched airstrikes against nuclear sites in Iran. The full consequences of the operation – for Iran's nuclear program and for the broader balance of power in the Middle East – remain uncertain. But in Moscow, reactions were swift. Russian politicians and foreign policy experts have begun drawing conclusions, offering early forecasts and strategic interpretations of what may come next. In this special report, RT presents the view from Russia: a collection of sharp, often contrasting perspectives from analysts and officials on what Washington's latest military move means for the region – and for the world. The trap awaiting Trump is simple – but highly effective. If Iran responds by targeting American assets, the US will be pulled deeper into a military confrontation almost by default. If on the other hand, Tehran holds back or offers only a token response, Israel's leadership – backed by its neoconservative allies in Washington – will seize the moment to pressure the White House: now is the time to finish off a weakened regime and force a convenient replacement. Until that happens, they'll argue the job isn't done. Whether Trump is willing – or even able – to resist that pressure remains uncertain. Most likely, Iran will avoid hitting US targets directly in an effort to prevent a point-of-no-return escalation with American forces. Instead, it will likely intensify its strikes on Israel. Netanyahu, in turn, will double down on his efforts to convince Washington that regime change in Tehran is the only viable path forward – something Trump, at least for now, remains instinctively opposed to. Still, the momentum of military entanglement has a logic of its own, and it's rarely easy to resist. If Iran does nothing, it risks appearing weak – both at home and abroad. That makes a carefully calibrated response almost inevitable: one designed not to escalate the conflict, but to preserve domestic legitimacy and project resolve. Tehran is unlikely to go much further than that. Meanwhile, by continuing to build up its military presence, Washington sends a clear deterrent message – signaling both readiness and resolve in case Tehran miscalculates. Another option for Iran could be a dramatic symbolic move: withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a step would be Tehran's way of declaring that Trump, by striking nuclear infrastructure, has effectively dismantled the global nonproliferation regime. The NPT was supposed to guarantee Iran's security; instead, it has delivered the opposite. Still, if Iran goes down that path, it risks damaging ties with Moscow and Beijing – neither of which wants to see a challenge to the existing nuclear order. The bigger question now is whether Iran will even consider returning to talks with Washington after this attack. Why negotiate when American promises no longer mean anything? Tehran urgently needs a mediator who can restrain Trump from further escalation – and right now, the only credible candidate is Moscow. Iran's foreign minister, [Abbas] Araghchi, is set to meet with President Putin on June 23. It's hard to imagine that a potential NPT withdrawal won't be on the table. If in the past an Iranian bomb was considered an existential threat to Israel, the calculus has now reversed: for Iran, nuclear capability is quickly becoming a question of survival. Let's state the obvious: Iraq, Libya – and now Iran – were bombed because they couldn't hit back. They either didn't have weapons of mass destruction or hadn't yet developed them. In some cases, they never even intended to. Meanwhile, the West doesn't touch the four countries that remain outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Why? Because unlike Iraq, Libya, and Iran, these states actually possess nuclear weapons. The message to so-called 'threshold' nations couldn't be clearer: if you don't want to be bombed by the West, arm yourself. Build deterrence. Go all the way – even to the point of developing weapons of mass destruction. That's the grim conclusion many countries will draw. It's a dangerous lesson, and one that flies in the face of global security and the very idea of a rules-based international order. Yet it's the West that keeps driving this logic. Iraq was invaded over a vial of powder. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was torn apart. Iran joined the NPT, worked with the IAEA, and didn't attack Israel – unlike Israel, which just struck Iran while staying outside the NPT and refusing to cooperate with nuclear watchdogs. This is more than hypocrisy; it's a catastrophic failure of US policy. Trump's administration has made a colossal mistake. The pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize has taken on grotesque and dangerous proportions. Some still cling to the illusion that World War III might somehow pass us by. It won't. We are already in the thick of it. The US has carried out a bombing strike against Iran – our ally. Nothing stopped them. And if nothing stopped them from bombing Iran, then nothing will stop them from targeting us next. At some point, they may decide that Russia, like Iran, shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons – or find some other pretext to strike. Make no mistake: we are at war. The US can attack whether we advance or retreat. It's not about strategy – it's about will. Ukraine may not be Israel in the eyes of the West, but it plays a similar role. Israel didn't always exist; it was created and quickly became a proxy for the collective West – though some Israelis would argue the opposite, that the West is merely a proxy for Israel. Ukraine has followed the same trajectory. No wonder Zelensky isn't asking for Western support – he's demanding it, including nuclear arms. The model is clear. And just like Israel bombs Gaza with impunity, Kiev bombarded Donbass for years – albeit with fewer resources and less restraint from Moscow. Our appeals to the UN and calls for peace have become meaningless. If Iran falls, Russia is next. Trump, once again, is firmly in the grip of the neocons – just as he was during his first term. The MAGA project is over. There is no 'great America,' only standard-issue globalism in its place. Trump thinks he can strike once – like he did with Soleimani – and then walk it back. But there's no walking this back. He has triggered a world war he cannot control, let alone win. Now, everything hinges on Iran. If it stays on its feet and keeps fighting, it might still prevail. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Houthis have blocked traffic in the Red Sea. As new players enter the fray, the situation will evolve rapidly. China will try to stay out – for now. Until the first blow lands on them, too. But if Iran folds, it won't just lose itself – it will expose the rest of us. That includes Russia, now facing an existential choice. The question isn't whether to fight. Russia is already fighting. The question is how. The old methods are exhausted. That means we'll have to find a new way to fight – and fast. Judging by the remarks from Hegseth and General Cain at the press conference, the US appears to be signaling the end of its direct involvement – at least for now. Officially, Iran's nuclear program has been 'eliminated.' Whether that's actually true is beside the point. Even if Tehran manages to build a bomb six months from now, the narrative is set: the operation was targeted solely at nuclear infrastructure, with no strikes on military forces or civilians. A narrow, clean, and – according to Washington – decisively successful mission. The job is done, the curtain falls. That doesn't mean Washington is walking away. The US will continue to back Israel and retains the capacity to escalate if needed. But for the moment, the mood seems to be one of self-congratulatory closure. Of course, if they really wanted to go all in, they could've used a tactical nuclear weapon. That would've offered undeniable 'proof' of an Iranian bomb: if it explodes, it must have existed. And second, it would've allowed the administration to claim it had destroyed nuclear weapons on Iranian soil. Both assertions would've been technically accurate – if strategically absurd. None of it would've been factually false. Just morally and politically radioactive. Why did the US choose to strike Iran now, after years of restraint? The answer is simple: fear. For decades, Washington held back out of concern that any attack would trigger a wave of retaliatory terror attacks – possibly hundreds – carried out by sleeper cells tied to Iran and its allies like Hezbollah. The prevailing assumption was that Iran had quietly prepared networks across the US and Israel, ready to unleash chaos in response. But Israel's war in Lebanon dispelled that myth. The feared sleeper cells never materialized. Once that became clear, both Israel and the US realized they could strike Iran with minimal risk of serious blowback. And so, ironically, Iran's restraint – its perceived 'peacefulness' – has paved the way to war. There's a lesson in that for Russia: when the West senses both a willingness to negotiate and a refusal to submit, it responds not with diplomacy, but with force. That is the true face of Western imperialism. Trump has crossed a red line. We're now facing the real possibility of a major military confrontation. Iran could retaliate by striking US military installations across the Middle East, prompting Washington to respond in kind. That would mark the beginning of a drawn-out armed conflict – one the US may find increasingly difficult to contain. What we're witnessing looks very much like a victory for the so-called 'deep state'. Many had expected Trump to hold back, to avoid taking the bait. But he allowed himself to be pulled into a high-risk gamble whose consequences are impossible to predict. And politically, this may backfire. If the standoff with Iran sends oil prices soaring, the fallout could be severe. In the United States, gasoline prices are sacrosanct. Any administration that allows them to spiral out of control faces serious domestic repercussions. For Trump, this could turn into a serious vulnerability. So, what exactly did the US accomplish with its midnight strike on three targets in Iran? 1. Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appears to be intact – or at worst, only minimally damaged. 2. Uranium enrichment will continue. And let's just say it plainly now: so will Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. 3. Several countries are reportedly ready to supply Iran with nuclear warheads directly. 4. Israel is under fire, explosions are echoing through its cities, and civilians are panicking. 5. The US is now entangled in yet another conflict, this one carrying the very real possibility of a ground war. 6. Iran's political leadership has not only survived – it may have grown stronger. 7. Even Iranians who opposed the regime are now rallying around it. 8. Donald Trump, the self-styled peace president, has just launched a new war. 9. The overwhelming majority of the international community is siding against the US and Israel. 10. At this rate, Trump can kiss that Nobel Peace Prize goodbye – despite how absurdly compromised the award has become. So, congratulations, Mr. President. Truly a stellar start.
New York Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump, Iran and the Specter of Iraq: ‘We Bought All the Happy Talk'
A little more than 22 years ago, Washington was on edge as a president stood on the precipice of ordering an invasion of Baghdad. The expectation was that it would be a quick, triumphant 'mission accomplished.' By the time the United States withdrew nearly nine years and more than 4,000 American deaths later, the Iraq war had become a historic lesson of miscalculation and unintended consequences. The specter of Iraq now hangs over a deeply divided, anxious Washington. President Trump, who campaigned against America's 'forever wars,' is pondering a swift deployment of American military might in Iran. This time there are not some 200,000 American troops massed in the Middle East, or antiwar demonstrations around the world. But the sense of dread and the unknown feels in many ways the same. 'So much of this is the same story told again,' said Vali R. Nasr, an Iranian American who is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 'Once upon a time we didn't know better, and we bought all the happy talk about Iraq. But every single assumption proved wrong.' There are many similarities. The Bush administration and its allies saw the invasion of Iraq as a 'cakewalk' and promised that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. There were internal disputes over the intelligence that justified the war. A phalanx of neoconservatives pushed hard for the chance to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the longtime dictator of Iraq. And America held its breath waiting for President George W. Bush to announce a final decision. Today Trump allies argue that coming to the aid of Israel by dropping 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, Iran's most fortified nuclear site, could be a one-off event that would transform the Middle East. There is a dispute over intelligence between Tulsi Gabbard, Mr. Trump's director of national intelligence, who said in March that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, and Mr. Trump, who retorted on Tuesday that 'I don't care what she said.' Iran, he added, was in fact close to a nuclear weapon. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Independent
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump isn't just burning his MAGA coalition over Iran — he's inspiring a new one to rise against him
Donald Trump, in the words of one prominent supporter this week, is 'angrily hemorrhaging the coalition that returned him to power' with his open support for Israel's onslaught against Iran and his open consideration of direct U.S. involvement. On Capitol Hill, there already are signs that a new political alliance is emerging in direct defiance of the president's sudden heel turn. With Axios reporting Tuesday that the president is now actively considering direct U.S. engagement in the Israeli effort to target Iranian nuclear weapons development facilities, the illusion of Donald Trump as the 'peace' candidate is quickly dissolving away. Signs of peace in Ukraine are nonexistent. Massacres at aid distribution sites occur in Gaza, where a ceasefire is still not within reach. And despite touting his first administration's record of non-engagement in further global conflicts and his relentless campaigning on the issue of a world in chaos in 2024, Trump is now potentially poised to direct U.S. military forces to strike Iran. Republican opponents of this hawkish neoconservative view of Iran — who supported his administration engaging in the first sustained talks with Tehran in more than a decade — are furious. Monday dawned in D.C. with that tension boiling over into a dispute between former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Trump, who blasted his one-time staunch ally as 'kooky' on Truth Social and reiterated that he was bent on preventing Iran's government from developing a nuclear weapon. The president and other administration officials have fought back (without evidence) against reporters and critics who have questioned why the White House believes the Iranian nuclear program is active when Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to the contrary earlier this year. Steve Bannon, another top figure in Trumpworld, continues to trash the idea of U.S. combat operations. 'We have to stop that,' he told Carlson in a conversation on his War Room podcast Monday, referring to an order for such operations from the White House. They were joined on Tuesday by Caroline Sunshine, a former deputy communications director for the Trump campaign, who posted an essay on Twitter urging against U.S. military support for the war. 'The USA has nothing to gain from getting involved in another war in the Middle East. Young strong Americans will die early deaths, gas prices will go up as oil rises, China would love seeing us distracted in yet another costly prolonged conflict, and President Trump's entire domestic agenda of mass deportations for illegal immigrants & tariffs to rebuild the American middle class will be totally derailed by the distraction of war,' she wrote. 'President Trump is a chess player. I pray all of this is an elaborate ruse to get Iran to fold like Reagan did with the USSR,' she added. Others on the right see the issue, led by Trump's own decisions and actions, as having the real possibility of irreparably damaging the MAGA voting coalition. Younger voters especially are skeptical of U.S. military interventionism, and younger males made up a growing and significant part of the president's winning voting bloc in 2024. On Tuesday, Curt Mills of the American Conservative magazine wrote that the political damage from the Iran conflict was already becoming apparent. Mills, who wrote that Trump was voluntarily 'hemorrhaging' his alliances on the right, was apoplectic about the possibility of the U.S. becoming involved in a drawn-out conflict with Iran — it was evident across his Twitter feed. Like Bannon, Mills and other 'paleo' conservatives fret that a war with Iran could become the same kind of protracted struggle that led to the occupation of Iraq and subsequent war against the Islamic State, or the pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and collapse of the democratic Afghan government in the face of a Taliban insurgency. 'Tacky jingoism. Will end in tears,' said Mills in a tweet, deriding Trump's boasting of achieving 'total' control of Iranian airspace. 'Is that what tens of millions of frustrated and desperate Americans put their faith in this person to achieve? I missed that part. Though heard a lot about 'no more endless wars'. 'The tragic, full circle of destroying the Bush monarchy only to enact their policy— dangerously complete,' Mills continued, referring to Trump's public skewering of former Gov. Jeb Bush and his brother, President George W. Bush, during his first run for the presidency. Mills pleaded: 'Can still pull back'. He also warned that the growing and bipartisan group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill signing on to a resolution led by Thomas Massie, a non-MAGA Republican with a libertarian streak and history of bucking Trump, over restricting the president from going to war with Iran was a sign of a strong, unifying political force mobilizing against the president. Centrist Democrats and progressives alike were coming together around an issue while the national Democratic Party's battle over its identity rages on. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was one of the first to sign on to Massie's resolution, which does not yet include any other Republicans. Some GOPers typically close to the president, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), have already expressed their own opposition to war with Iran. In the Senate, a resolution is being led by Tim Kaine — the center-left Virginia Democrat who was Hillary Clinton's running mate in 2016, to give an idea of the breadth of the agreement on the left. Rep. Ro Khanna, a Pennsylvania progressive who has openly tried to build bridges with populist Republicans, was at it again on Tuesday afternoon. As the possibility of war seemed to draw closer, he made an open appeal for Greene and other House conservatives to sign on to Massie's resolution. Their reluctance may be the only political silver lining for Trump in this moment, even if it's a sign of the president's own electoral strength, rather than ideological agreement. Tweeting at Greene, Rep. Chip Roy and others, Khanna issued his rallying call: 'We have 14 progressives. Let us show anti war is no longer partisan.'
