US-Iran crisis: what we know so far
US president Donald Trump has brought up the possibility of regime change in following US military strikes against three of its key nuclear enrichment sites over the weekend, even as top members of his administration insisted the US was not seeking to topple the Iranian leadership. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.
Vice-president JD Vance had insisted the US was 'not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear programme' while US secretary of state Marco Rubio said that that the US was 'not looking for war in Iran'.
The US state department has issued a 'worldwide caution' for Americans, saying the conflict between Israel and Iran could put those travelling or living abroad at an increased security risk.
Related: How the carefully planned US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities unfolded
World leaders are now awaiting Iran's response to the US attacks. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, told France's Emmanuel Macron: 'The Americans must receive a response to their aggression.' Speaking in Istanbul, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araqchi said his country would consider all possible responses. 'The US showed they have no respect for international law. They only understand the language of threat and force,' he said. He later flew to Moscow to discuss 'common threats' with President Vladimir Putin on Monday.
Iran's parliament has reportedly approved the closing of the key strait of Hormuz shipping lane. Reuters reported Iran's supreme national security council will make the final decision on the move, which could hamstring global trade by shutting the narrow passage between Iran and Oman. US secretary of state Marco Rubio urged China to advise Tehran against closing the vital trade route, telling Fox News: 'I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the strait of Hormuz for their oil. If they do that, it will be another terrible mistake.'
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said is very close to meeting its goals in Iran of removing the threats of ballistic missiles and the nuclear programme. Speaking to Israeli reporters, he said: 'We won't pursue our actions beyond what is needed to achieve them, but we also won't finish too soon. When the objectives are achieved, then the operation is complete and the fighting will stop.' A social media account associated with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, later said Israel has made a 'grave mistake' and 'must be punished and is being punished'.
The UK, France and Germany released a joint statement after the US strikes, calling upon to engage in negotiations leading to agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program. The three countries also urged Iran 'not to take any further action that could destabilise the region', adding: 'We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security.'
Iran's health ministry said the US strikes had wounded an unspecified number of people but that none 'showed any signs of radioactive contamination'. 'For years, the ministry of health has set up nuclear emergency units in the nearest medical facilities to nuclear sites,' ministry spokesperson Hossein Kermanpour said on X.
Israel said its fighter jets had struck 'dozens' of targets across Iran on Sunday, including a long-range missile site in Yazd in the centre of the country for the first time, Agence France Presse reported. A military statement said that 'approximately 30 IAF [air force] fighter jets struck dozens of military targets throughout Iran' – including 'the 'Imam Hussein' strategic missile command center in the Yazd area, where long-range Khorramshahr missiles were stored'.
US secretary of state Marco Rubio said that 'there are no planned military operations right now against .' In a new interview with CBS, Rubio added that 'no one will know for days' whether Iran had moved some of its nuclear materials prior to the strikes.
Pete Hegseth, the US secretary of defence, said the impact of the airstrikes was still being assessed, but that the bombing had hit the areas that had been identified in the planning of the operation. Hegseth said: 'The battle damage assessment is ongoing, but our initial assessment as the chairman said is that all of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike, and had the desired effect.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
33 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How Gay Marriage Is Under Threat in the Trump Era
What a difference a few months make. Just before Donald Trump returned to office in January, gay marriage was thought to be settled law in the United States. After all, it was only 10 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court declared gay marriage a constitutionally-protected right with its landmark decision on Obergefell v. Hodges. But a flurry of executive orders targeting the LGBTQ community casts a big shadow over the future of gay marriage. On Jan. 25, his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that declared: 'It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.' Soon after, Trump blocked trans women from participating in female sports and the Pentagon banned trans people from serving openly in the military. U.S. park services then deleted LGBTQ references from national landmarks such as Philadelphia's Independence Hall, the site of some of the earliest gay rights protests. The Trump Administration followed that by canceling $800 million in grants that research LGBTQ health and shutting down a national suicide hotline catered to LGBTQ youth. But how endangered is gay marriage under Trump? Gay marriage activists and their allies take comfort in the high support that gay marriage enjoys among the American public. According to a Gallup poll from May, more than two in three Americans support it, and nearly as many say gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable. Gallup also noted that a majority of Americans have backed gay marriage since the early 2010s. It is a testament to these sentiments that the U.S. Congress enacted the Respect for Marriage Act (RMFA) in 2022 with broad bipartisan support. This law recognizes the legality of gay marriage for federal purposes, such as allowing same-sex couples to file a joint tax return. It also requires that states accept same-sex marriage licenses issued by another state. But neither these protections nor the polls should create a sense of complacency. Support for gay marriage among Americans is decreasing not increasing. The 69% support that gay marriage garnered in May is below the 71% recorded in 2022 and 2023. A majority of Republicans also once again oppose gay marriage, with support dropping 14 points since 2022. Contrary to public perception, the RMFA did not codify Obergefell into law. RMFA primarily allows for federal recognition of gay marriage, by repealing the odious Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was enacted in 1996 at the peak of the moral panic over gay marriage orchestrated by the Christian right. DOMA prohibited federal recognition of gay marriage even if the marriage was conducted in a state that had legalized it. Consequently, if Obergefell were to be nullified, the RMFA will protect federal recognition of gay marriage. But it will not prevent the reactivation of dozens of gay marriage bans erected across the U.S. prior to 2015, most of which are still in the books. Nor will the RMFA prevent states from erecting new legal barriers. In fact, the legislation exempts nonprofit religious organizations from providing 'any services, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of marriage.' All of this explains why the RMFA got a chilly reception among gay rights activists. Until recently moribund, the anti-gay marriage movement is also showing signs of life. It has been re-invigorated by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended 50 years of legalized abortion in America. In comments that delighted gay marriage foes and alarmed gay marriage activists, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Court should also 'reconsider' past rulings on same-sex marriage and contraception. Just this month, the annual conference of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., called for an end to gay marriage. The move echoes ongoing efforts by half a dozen Republican-controlled states to undermine gay marriage. Yet other states are fighting back. Democratic legislators in Virginia and Oregon are working to repeal laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage that could in theory be resuscitated should Obergefell be overturned. Meanwhile, the revived debate about gay marriage offers an opportunity to reframe the issue. During the 1990s, gay marriage activists embraced the view that it was a civil rights matter, noting some 1,000 marriage benefits only available to straight couples. But this framing backfired by coming across as legalistic and materialistic. After several setbacks, especially California's Proposition 8 in 2008, gay activists pitched a new framing of 'love and commitment.' While this narrative boosted support for gay marriage, its modesty meant that a big opportunity was missed to make a more transformative impact on societal attitudes toward LGBTQ people. Going forward, gay activists should frame gay marriage as something morally sound and intrinsically good. For one thing, the apocalyptic predictions that social conservatives made about gay marriage—from the advent of another Civil War to the disappearance of straight children to the end of marriage itself—never came to pass. There is also now a wealth of data that highlights the benefits of gay marriage for the gay community and society as a whole. In the 10 years since Obergefell became the law of the land, it is clear that gay marriage has been good for the American gay community, and perhaps even better for America at large. It would be a national shame and a massive setback for LGBTQ equality were it to be revoked.
Fox News
34 minutes ago
- Fox News
Senate GOP eyes Medicaid sweetener to save Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
The Medicaid debate among Senate Republicans continues to rage on, but a new proposal geared toward sating concerns over the survivability of rural hospitals could help to close the lingering fissures within the conference. Senate Republicans are sprinting to finish their work on President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," which is filled with key priorities like making his first-term tax cuts permanent, funding his immigration and border security agenda, and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse across a variety of programs. But lawmakers are still at odds over changes made in the Senate's version of the bill to the Medicaid provider tax rate and the effects that it could have on rural hospitals, threatening to derail the legislation near the finish line. A proposal making the rounds from the Senate Finance Committee obtained by Fox News Digital would create a separate stabilization fund that would go toward aiding and upgrading rural healthcare. The committee's proposal would allocate $3 billion annually to states that apply to the program over the next five fiscal years. But that amount is too low for some senators and far too much for others. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has been working on a similar proposal but would prefer a much higher fund of $100 billion. That number is unlikely to pass muster with her colleagues and still isn't high enough for her. "I don't think that solves the entire problem," she said. "The Senate cuts in Medicaid are far deeper than the House cuts and I think that's problematic as well." Collins would prefer a return to the House GOP's proposed changes to the provider tax rate, rather than the Senate's harsher crackdown. The Senate changes to the provider tax rate hit close to home for Collins, whose state's rural hospitals are already in jeopardy because the state of Maine failed to advance its budget in time, leaving roughly $400 million in Medicaid funding that would have gone to rural hospitals in limbo. "Obviously any money is helpful. But no, it is not adequate," she said. Indeed, the changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate, which were a stark departure from the House GOP's version of the bill, angered the Republicans who have warned not to make revisions to the health care program that could shut down rural hospitals and boot working Americans from their benefits. The Senate Finance Committee went further than the House's freeze of the provider tax rate, or the amount that state Medicaid programs pay to healthcare providers on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, for non-Affordable Care Act expansion states and included a provision that lowers the rate in expansion states annually until it hits 3.5%. However, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz and some Senate Republicans have argued that the provider tax rate is a scam rife with fraud that actually harms rural hospitals more than it helps. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., was in the same camp, and has argued that the rate should be nixed completely. He has similarly pushed for a separate fund but wasn't keen on the cost of the current proposal. "I don't know that we need $15 billion," he said. "But this needs to be run by CMS." And others wanted to see more money injected into a stabilization fund. "I think $5 billion a year would more than make them whole," Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., said. He contended that, as the only lawmaker who has run a rural hospital, there are only roughly 12 million people on Medicaid in rural America, and that lawmakers should "tighten things up" when it comes to funding the health care program. He said that being on Medicaid was "not the same as having healthcare," and added that "at best, two thirds of doctors accept Medicaid, and even many of the specialists, when they say they do, they won't give you an appointment for six months or a year." "Medicaid is not the solution," he said. "It's the most broken federal system up here."
Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tim Kennedy On Save Our Allies Mission To Rescue & Aid Americans and Allies in Crisis & Catastrophes
Tim Kennedy, founder of Save Our Allies spoke to Brian Kilmeade about how his organization helps rescue Americans and our allies in need across the globe. Listen here:
