Iran trying to 'save face' following US strike on nuclear sites, expert says
As the total damage to three Iranian nuclear sites continues to be assessed, one Middle East expert says that Iran's stated assessment only reinforces U.S. and Israeli views.
Israel, which has said the strikes set the Iranian nuclear program back years, has the greatest resources in place to make a determination and the most incentive to get the facts right, Jacob Olidort, director of the Center of American Security at the America First Policy Institute, told Fox News Digital.
"Both the US and Israel say they achieved their objectives," Olidort said. "Israel presumably had planned around this for many years, and Israel says it has met its objectives, which is destroying Iran's ability to enrich uranium."
The U.S. launched a surprise strike using B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities on Saturday.
Hegseth Tears Into Reporters, Alleging They 'Cheer Against Trump' And Iran Strikes
Some media reports have pushed back on the Trump administration's claims that the sites were destroyed and set Iran back years in its quest to achieve a nuclear weapon.
Read On The Fox News App
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei on Wednesday told Al Jazeera that "our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that's for sure," though he refused to go into detail.
Israel-iran Conflict: Live Updates
Olidort said that "everything Iran is doing now is to save face."
'The Mission Was Accomplished': Senate Republicans Push Back Against Leaked Report On Iran Strikes
"We should never take anything Iran says at face value, but their assessment can only reinforce the views of Israel and the U.S. view," he said.
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency Director Rafael Grossi, reiterated on Thursday that the damage done by Israeli and U.S. strikes at Iranian nuclear facilities "is very, very, very considerable."
"I think annihilated is too much, but it suffered enormous damage," Grossi told French broadcaster RFI.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.Original article source: Iran trying to 'save face' following US strike on nuclear sites, expert says
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who is the Senate parliamentarian and why does she have so much control over Trump's tax bill?
WASHINGTON — The official procedural adviser for the Senate has come under fire after issuing a number of rulings that remove key components of Republicans' massive tax package, with some lawmakers even suggesting to remove her from her post. A growing number of Republicans have pushed to fire Elizabeth MacDonough, who has served as the Senate parliamentarian since 2012 after being appointed by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But after stripping several Medicaid-related provisions in President Donald Trump's tax bill on Thursday, some lawmakers want to fire her amid accusations of political bias. 'The WOKE Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and advised Al Gore, just STRUCK DOWN a provision BANNING illegals from stealing Medicaid from American citizens,' Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., said in a post on X. 'Her job is not to push a woke agenda. THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP.' A handful of other Republicans have echoed those calls, accusing MacDonough of illegally blocking Trump's agenda. However, GOP leaders such as Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., have brushed off those suggestions, arguing it would set a bad precedent. Thune also rejected overruling the parliamentarian on her decisions about what can and cannot be included in the reconciliation package, telling reporters 'that would not be a good option for getting a bill done.' The parliamentarian acts as an adviser to the Senate by interpreting its rules and procedures to determine how certain legislation can be advanced. In the reconciliation process, the parliamentarian must review all provisions and proposals to ensure it adheres to the strict rules that allow the package to be free from the filibuster. Through the budget reconciliation process, Republicans can circumvent Democratic opposition and prevent a filibuster to expedite the passage of certain legislation and go around the minority party by enacting key pieces of their agenda with a simple majority vote. But there are certain rules that dictate how often reconciliation can be used, and the procedure can only be utilized to advance budget-related legislation such as taxes, spending and the debt limit. The parliamentarian is responsible for reviewing each provision based on those guidelines to approve whether it is subject to a simple-majority vote or must go through the filibuster process. Republicans have gotten increasingly frustrated with MacDonough after a series of rulings that determined key provisions related to Medicaid did not adhere to reconciliation rules, forcing party leaders to either rewrite those portions or remove them altogether. One of the most controversial proposals removed from the bill is language seeking to crack down on state provider taxes, which are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. The proposed bill sought to reduce that tax from the current 6% down to 3.5%, raising concerns among lawmakers from states they say rely on that tax to provide money for health coverage. The removal of that provision deals a major blow to Republicans as they estimated it would save billions of dollars to help pay for the tax cut extensions. That decision prompted outrage from House and Senate Republicans, who said MacDonough should be fired over accusations of bias. 'The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected. She is not accountable to the American people. Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters,' said Florida Rep. Greg Steube. 'It is time for our elected leaders to take back control. (Vice President JD Vance) should overrule the Parliamentarian and let the will of the people, not some staffer hiding behind Senate procedure, determine the future of this country.' Although MacDonough is currently a target of accusations that she is biased against Republicans, just a few years ago the parliamentarian was making similar rulings against Democrats. MacDonough also oversaw Democrats' reconciliation efforts in 2021 when she ruled against a provision to increase the federal minimum wage, prompting anger from Democrats who controlled both chambers of Congress at the time. Since the latest rulings, a handful of Senate and House Republicans have urged their colleagues to either fire the parliamentarian or simply ignore her rulings. While the Senate majority leader holds the power to fire the parliamentarian, it doesn't appear Thune is eager to do so. The top Senate Republican has repeatedly indicated he would follow the rulings issued by MacDonough and that he has contingency plans to readjust the tax provisions that have so far been stripped from the bill. However, there is historical precedent for removing the parliamentarian. Then-Majority Leader Trent Lott removed Robert Dove from the position in 2001 due to similar disputes over budget reconciliation rulings.
New York Post
44 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump won more than half of foreign-born Hispanics — still would have beaten Harris if every eligible person voted in 2024 election: analysis
President Trump won more than half of foreign-born Hispanic voters in the 2024 election and still would've beat former Vice President Kamala Harris had every eligible voter turned out to the polls, an analysis of his landslide victory concluded Thursday. A stunning 51% of Hispanic, naturalized US citizens voted for Trump over Harris, according to the Pew Research Center's 2024 election post-mortem. Trump, who on the campaign trail pledged to crackdown on illegal immigration and shore up the southern border, bested Harris among foreign-born Hispanics by 3 percentage points and performed 12 points better within the demographic than he did in 2020. Advertisement 3 Trump won a majority of foreign-born Hispanic voters in the 2024 presidential election. Gregory P. Mango After losing the overall Hispanic vote to former president Joe Biden in 2020 (61%-36%), Trump came within striking distance of topping Harris' 51% Latino vote total, garnering 48% from the demographic. By comparison, Trump received only 28% of the Hispanic vote during his first presidential election in 2016. Advertisement The Pew Research Center analysis, which surveyed almost 9,000 voters in the weeks after the 2024 election, found that Trump's coalition of support in his third presidential campaign was 'more racially and ethnically diverse' than ever before. The president carried 15% of Black voters (up from 8% in 2020), 40% of Asian voters (up from 30% in 2020) and maintained the same 55% support from white voters he received four years earlier. Slightly fewer eligible voters turned out to the polls in 2024 (64%) than did in 2020 (66%), and among those that did – a higher share of Trump's 2020 backers than Biden's 2020 supporters cast ballots, according to Pew. 3 Trump made major gains among Hispanic voters in the 2024 election. Getty Images Advertisement 3 More nonvoters would have broken for Trump than Harris. Getty Images But even if every eligible person in the country would have voted, Trump still would have won the 2024 presidential election, the analysis found. Among non-voters, 44% would have voted for Trump, while 40% said they would have backed Harris – shattering the longstanding political belief that higher turnout helps Democrats. Had these people participated in the 2024 election, Trump's margin of victory over Harris would have increased from 1.5 percentage points to 3 percentage points. Trump's historic 49.7%-48.2% victory over Harris last November saw him win the national popular vote for the first time and more Electoral College votes (312) than he won in 2016.
44 minutes ago
Family files for release in lawsuit considered first involving children challenging arrests at court
A mother and her two young kids are fighting for their release from a Texas immigration detention center in what is believed to be the first lawsuit involving children challenging the Trump administration's policy on immigrant arrests at courthouses. The lawsuit filed Tuesday argues that the family's arrests after fleeing Honduras and entering the U.S. legally using a Biden-era appointment app violate the family's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure and their Fifth Amendment right to due process. 'The big picture is that the executive branch cannot seize people, arrest people, detain people indefinitely when they are complying with exactly what our government has required of them,' said Columbia Law School professor Elora Mukherjee, one of the lawyers representing the family. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. Starting in May, the country has seen large-scale arrests in which asylum-seekers appearing at routine court hearings have been arrested outside courtrooms as part of the White House's mass deportation effort. In many cases, a judge will grant a government lawyer's request to dismiss deportation proceedings and then U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will arrest the person and place them on 'expedited removal," a fast track to deportation. Mukherjee said this is the first lawsuit filed on behalf of children to challenge the ICE courthouse arrest policy. There have been other similar lawsuits, such as in New York, where a federal judge ruled earlier this month that federal immigration authorities can't make civil arrests at the state's courthouses or arrest anyone going there for a proceeding. The Texas lawsuit was filed using initials for the children and 'Ms. Z' for the mother. Their identities have not been released because of concerns for the family's safety. As the family has been held for a month in the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, the mother has watched her 6-year-old son's health decline, Mukherjee said. He recently underwent chemotherapy treatment for leukemia and because of his arrest missed his check-in doctor's appointment, Mukherjee said. In the weeks since, he has lost his appetite. 'He's easily bruising. He has bone pain. He looks pale," Mukherjee said. "His mom is terrified that these are symptoms that his leukemia situation might be deteriorating.' The mother, son and 9-year-old daughter fled Honduras in October 2024 due to death threats, according to the lawsuit. They entered the U.S. using the CBP One app and were paroled into the country by the Department of Homeland Security, which determined they didn't pose a danger to the community, Mukherjee said. They were told to appear at a Los Angeles immigration court May 29. President Donald Trump ended CBP One for new entrants on his first day in office after more than 900,000 people had been allowed in the country using the app since it was expanded to include migrants in January 2023. During the family's hearing, the mother tried to explain to the judge that they wished to continue their cases for asylum, Mukherjee said. Homeland Security moved to dismiss their cases, and the judge immediately granted that motion. When they stepped out of the courtroom, they found men in civilian clothing believed to be ICE agents who arrested the family, Mukherjee said. They were transported to an immigrant processing center in Los Angeles, where they spent about 11 hours and were each only given an apple, a small packet of cookies, a juice box and water. At one point, an officer near the boy lifted his shirt, revealing his gun. The boy urinated on himself and was left in wet clothing until the next morning, Mukherjee said. They were later taken to the processing center, where they have been held ever since. 'The family is suffering in this immigration detention center,' she said. 'The kids are crying every night. They're praying to God for their release from this detention center." Their lawyers have filed an appeal of the immigration judge's May decision, but they're at risk of being deported within days because the government says they are subjected to expedited removal, Mukherjee said. The arrests of the family were illegal and unjustified, said Kate Gibson Kumar, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights project who is also representing the family. She said the government had already decided when they first entered the country that the family didn't need to be detained. 'The essential question in our case is, when you have these families who are doing everything right, especially with young children, should there be some protection there?" Gibson Kumar said. "We say 'yes.''
