Iran eyes ‘all options' in response to ‘outrageous' US strikes
Iran early Sunday morning warned the United States' attacks on three nuclear sites would have 'everlasting consequences,' saying it is reviewing 'all options' to respond to the strikes.
'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior,' Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi posted on social media platform X.
Araghchi maintained Iran would be acting in 'self-defense' with any retaliation to the strikes authorized by President Trump, stating Tehran 'reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.'
The comments came roughly two hours after Trump warned of more attacks on Iran if it did not agree to a satisfactory peace deal in the wake of the U.S. bombing Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. The president said the three Iranian nuclear facilities were 'completely and totally obliterated' by American strikes.
United Nations secretary-general António Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' over the Trump administration's use of force, adding, 'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.'
Iran's top diplomat on Sunday accused the U.S. of having 'committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations.'
Trump's decision to strike Iran came after more than a week of Israeli attacks against its biggest regional rival. Israel and the U.S. have said Iran's nuclear enrichment program went beyond levels needed for civilian use and vowed to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
'Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror,' Trump said in remarks at the White House, calling Saturday's strikes a 'spectacular military success.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
40,000 reasons to worry: U.S. troops in Middle East vulnerable to counterattack
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has at least 40,000 reasons to worry about the aftermath of Saturday's attack on Iran. That's the rough number of U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, in bases from Bahrain to Syria and points in between. Not to mention U.S. citizens who live and work in the region. Commanders over the past two weeks have beefed up defenses and put troops on higher alert for attack, according to a senior Defense official. Those service members are vulnerable to counterattacks that could involve Iranian ballistic missiles, drones or terrorism after the United States joined Israel in its ongoing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran can strike 'all of them,' a U.S. Defense official said. Prime targets include Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the Pentagon's sprawling hub for warplanes in the Middle East. There are about 10,000 U.S. troops based there. The threat is real. Iran launched 13 ballistic missiles at U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2020. That attack, which wounded about 100 U.S. troops, followed the U.S. drone strike that killed Gen. Qasem Soleimani, leader of Iran's elite Quds Force, part of the country's hardline paramilitary Revolutionary Guard Corps. Trump hailed the June 21 attack as a "spectacular" success. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated," Trump said in a live address, threatening further strikes if Tehran did not agree to U.S. terms. The U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was likely spearheaded by the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a bomb that can burrow deep into the earth before unleashing a huge explosion. More: How does a bunker-buster bomb work? A closer look at the GBU-57 This week, to bolster protection for Americans in the Middle East, the Pentagon has begun shifting more firepower to the region, including the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group, which is days away from arriving. Those ships will join others capable of shooting down ballistic missiles. The added warplanes from the Nimitz and others in the region would be able to deliver a devastating response in Iran if they did attack U.S. troops, according to the U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Asked whether there were adequate protections in place to repel an Iranian attack, a Pentagon spokesperson pointed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's X post on June 16. Hegseth noted the 'deployment of additional capabilities' to the region and that the protection of U.S. troops is 'our top priority.' On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that 'maximum protection' measures were in place. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat on the committee, said he found Hegseth unconvincing. 'I was really disappointed that he failed to offer greater assurance that we have taken active measures to protect U.S. personnel, both military and civilian, in the event of a strike by the United States,' Blumenthal said in an interview. 'I asked specifically about drones and possibility of using them against American targets. I had no real comfort that there are adequate plans to stop or deflect such attacks.' Dispatching the Nimitz strike group is a good step, Blumenthal said. But he questioned the ships' ability to stop terrorist attacks or swarms of drones. Blumenthal also noted that Iran may have the ability to mount drone attacks from within the United States. He pointed to Ukraine's devastating drone attack on Russian warplanes deep inside its border. Israel, too, used drones smuggled into Iran as part of its attack. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 40,000 U.S. troops at risk after attack on Iran
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Israel says the remains of 3 hostages have been recovered from Gaza
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — The Israeli military says it has recovered the remains of three hostages held in the Gaza Strip. It identified them as Yonatan Samerano, 21; Ofra Keidar, 70; and Shay Levinson, 19. All three were killed during Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack into Israel that ignited the ongoing war. The militant group is still holding 50 hostages, less than half of them believed to be alive. Kobi Samerano said in a Facebook post that his son's remains were returned on what would have been Yonatan's 23rd birthday. 'The campaign to return the hostages continues consistently and is happening alongside the campaign against Iran,' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement. Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducted 251 people in the Oct. 7 attack. More than half the hostages have been returned in ceasefire agreements or other deals, eight have been rescued alive and Israeli forces have recovered dozens of bodies. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed over 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which has said that women and children make up more than half of the dead. It does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. ___ Follow AP's war coverage at
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
AOC howls about impeaching Trump. But president had the authority to bomb Iran.
If the president is not able to respond to a hostile regime building weapons that could destroy entire American cities, then I'm not sure what else would allow him to act. Shortly before 8 p.m. ET on June 21, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear program sites, including the difficult to penetrate Fordow enrichment facility. After days of deliberation, Trump decided that the only way to ensure Iran could not obtain nuclear weapons was through U.S. military action. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was strategically the right move and a just action. Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and this attack appears to have prevented that in the near term. However, there is another important question: Was the U.S. attack constitutional? Opinion: Trump's rebuke of MAGA isolationists is smart foreign policy. We must stop Iran. Did Congress approve Iran bombing? Can Trump legally strike without it? There has been much debate surrounding the question of whether the president can act militarily without Congress' approval. House members on both sides of the aisle have indicated they think the president needs congressional approval. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, posted on X immediately after Trump announced the strike. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, stated on X. It is true that the power to declare war belongs to Congress, but that fact is muddied by legislation governing the president's authority. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying American troops if a formal declaration of war has not already been declared. The resolution also requires that the president withdraw any forces deployed in a conflict within 60 days if Congress has not formally declared war. The law was intended as a constriction of presidents' authority to start a war. Yet, in practice it has done the opposite. Rather than using military action simply to respond to an imminent attack, presidents have read the statute as a license to act for 60 days without congressional approval. Another view: Trump just bombed Iran. We deserve to know why, but don't count on the truth. | Opinion There is a cautious balance in the war powers between the president and Congress. The president is the commander in chief, and the job requires him to deal with immediate threats. Congress is a slow moving body, and cannot possibly react to imminent national defense threats. Yet, war authority lies with Congress, and the president would need congressional approval to launch a massive ground war in a foreign nation, both practically and constitutionally. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1942, but it has passed resolutions authorizing force during more recent conflicts. Trump likely had authority to strike Iran Trump probably has the facts on his side in this instance. Iran has previously threatened to attack the United States, and it was rapidly approaching the capacity to build a nuclear bomb, according to Israeli intelligence. If the president is not able to respond to a hostile regime building weapons that could destroy entire American cities, then I'm not sure what else, short of an actual invasion of the homeland, would allow for him to act. Iran has been attacking American ships through their proxies in Yemen, the Houthis. America has responded with air strikes against them. Striking against Iran directly is no different. History also is on Trump's side. President Barack Obama, to cite just one example, acted in the same way by ordering American military action in Libya. Other experts have pointed out that Iran's harboring of fugitives involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks opens up a different path for congressional approval. The president has the authority to act against nations harboring terrorists who were involved in the largest terror attacks ever launched on American soil. Trump's bombing of Iran is not out of line with the actions of past presidents, and it fits within the president's authority to act against imminent threats. While Trump would need congressional approval to launch a prolonged armed conflict against Iran, he has history and the facts on his side in this case. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
