Houthis vow to retaliate after Israel hits Sanaa airport
dpa
Tel Aviv/Cairo
The Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have threatened Israel with retaliation following Israel's strike on the airport in Yemen's capital Sanaa on Tuesday, which the rebel group said killed three and wounded at least 35.
The attacks 'will not go unanswered,' said the Houthi's political bureau in a statement. The Houthi-aligned TV channel described the attacks as 'Israeli-American,' though the United States has not commented on the strikes.
The casualty figures were provided by the Houthi health ministry. Israel said its attacks on the Houthis, which in addition to Tuesday's airport strike included several attacks on Monday, were in response to Houthi attacks on Israel including a missile launched on Sunday that landed near Israel's Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv.
On Monday, the Israeli military attacked the port in Hudaydah and a cement factory Israel said its strike on the airport disabled the facility and 'dismantled Houthi terrorist infrastructure' on the site, according to a statement by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Telegram. It said runways and aircraft had also been hit. 'The airport served as a central hub for the Houthi terrorist regime to transfer weapons and operatives,' the IDF said.
In addition, the IDF said it had struck several power plants in the area, as well as a concrete plant north of Sanaa, which serves as a 'significant resource for the Houthi terrorist regime.' The Houthis said the two days of attacks on the airport and other infrastructure show that Israel's aim is to impose a siege on the Yemeni people.
Yemen has been embroiled in a civil war for 10 years, leaving the country effectively divided.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
2 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Iran condemns ‘racist mentality' behind US president's travel ban
Iran has sharply criticised United States President Donald Trump's travel ban on its nationals and those of several countries, calling it 'racist' and a sign of deep-rooted hostility towards Iranians and Muslims. Trump earlier this week signed an executive order that bars and restricts travellers from 19 countries, including several African and Middle Eastern nations. The policy, set to take effect on Monday, echoes measures introduced during Trump's previous term in office from 2017-2021. In the executive order, Trump said he 'must act to protect the national security' of the US. Alireza Hashemi-Raja, who heads the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' department for Iranians abroad, said on Saturday that the decision reveals 'the dominance of a supremacist and racist mentality among American policymakers'. 'This measure indicates the deep hostility of American decision-makers towards the Iranian and Muslim people,' he said in a statement. The latest restrictions cover nationals from Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. A limited ban has also been applied to travellers from seven other countries. (Agencies)
Qatar Tribune
2 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
Agencies The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50 percent on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.''Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for US manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on US exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50 percent. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the US economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on US exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill'stax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in itseconomy. Foreigners see US Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30 percent of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1 percent earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Qatar Tribune
2 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Macron to visit Greenland to boost ‘European unity' amid Trump threats
Agencies Paris French President Emmanuel Macron will visit Greenland this month, the French presidency has announced, in the wake of the United States expressions of interest in taking over the mineral-rich Arctic island. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and the French leader said they will meet in the semi-autonomous Danish territory on June 15, hosted by Greenland's new Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen. The talks between the leaders will focus on North Atlantic and Arctic security, climate change, energy transition and critical minerals, the French presidency said in a statement on Saturday. Frederiksen welcomed Macron's upcoming visit and said in a statement that it is 'another concrete testimony of European unity' in the face of a 'difficult foreign policy situation'. The visit comes amid US President Donald Trump's threats to annex Greenland. This trip aims to 'strengthen cooperation' with the Arctic territory in these areas and to 'contribute to the strengthening of European sovereignty', the French presidency statement stressed. Since his return to the White House in January, Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to control the immense Arctic territory, rich in mineral resources and strategically located, 'one way or another'. 'We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it,' Trump said in an interview in March. The US has also suggested that Russia and China have strategic designs on Greenland. Trump's Vice President JD Vance visited the US military base in Pituffik, northwest Greenland, on March 28, in a trip seen as a provocation at the time. Vance accused Denmark of not having 'done a good job for the people of Greenland', not investing enough in the local economy and 'not ensuring its security'. The vice president stressed that the US has 'no option' but to take a significant position to ensure the security of the island as he encouraged a push in Greenland for independence from Denmark. 'I think that they ultimately will partner with the United States,' Vance said. 'We could make them much more secure. We could do a lot more protection. And I think they'd fare a lot better economically as well.' Denmark, for its part, insists that Greenland 'is not for sale'. Addressing American leaders from the huge island, the prime minister said in early April: 'You cannot annex another country.' Faced with American threats, Denmark announced 14.6 billion Danish kroner ($2.1bn) in financial commitments for Arctic security, covering three new naval vessels, long-range drones and satellites. Greenland's main political parties, which are in favour of the territory's independence in the long term, are also against the idea of joining the US. According to a poll published at the end of January, the population of 57,000 mostly Inuit inhabitants, including more than 19,000 in the capital, Nuuk, rejected any prospect of becoming American. Incoming Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen told a news conference in March that the territory needed unity at this time. 'It is very important that we put aside our disagreements and differences … because only in this way will we be able to cope with the heavy pressure we are exposed to from outside,' he said.
