Democrats ‘furious' Donald Trump took out Iran's nuclear capabilities
Sky News Digital Presenter Gabriella Power says some Democrats are 'furious' with US President Donald Trump because he took out Iran's nuclear capabilities.
'AOC and others have called for Donald Trump to be impeached for launching the strike on Iran without congressional approval,' Ms Power said.
'While many have been celebrating and thanking Donald Trump for having the courage to do this, others have been taking to the streets in cities around the world, protesting free Palestine and denouncing the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
41 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Australia's credibility not damaged from siding with US strikes on Iran
Centre of Independent Studies' Tom Switzer says Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's stance on US strikes in Iran does not damage Australia's credibility, nor does it isolate Australia from the world. 'Bear in mind … many nations around the world, including US allies, Japan, South Korea, have not given unqualified and unconditional support to these US strikes,' Mr Switzer told Sky News host Peta Credlin. 'Many Americans, from left to right, Democrats and Republicans, are highly anxious that this could drag the United States once again into a forever war. 'I don't think that Canberra's stance really damages Australian credibility or isolates us in the world, especially if there is a ceasefire.'
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Iranian people are ‘desperate' for regime change: Hirsi Ali
Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali says the Iranian people are 'desperate' for regime change. One ballistic missile has been fired into Israel from Iran after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to a bilateral ceasefire. 'They just need a little bit of help from us,' Ms Hirsi Ali told Sky News host Peta Credlin. 'I hope that Donald Trump and Netanyahu rise to the occasion.'
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Support for military action should depend on rule of law
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@ Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published. WAR The recent US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities raise serious questions, not just about Iran's objectives, but about how military force is authorised in a democracy. President Donald Trump's decision to bypass Congress wasn't only constitutionally shaky, but it also set a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power. Some have been quick to call any hesitation or push for diplomacy a sign of weakness. However, that's a simplistic view of a complex issue. Australia's decision to advocate for talks shows that we're thinking things through and sticking to what is right while keeping our long-term interests in mind. Backing our allies doesn't mean nodding along with every move they make. Our support should reflect our democratic values and respect for the rule of law. Bombs don't build peace; working together through proper channels has a much better chance of achieving it. Alistair McLellan, Yarrawonga Rethink alliance If only there were more Geoffrey Robertsons around to dispense incisive comment moulded by critical thinking (' Trump's rap sheet is long, but this may be his worst crime ', 23/6). The crux of the issue, with regards to the US' unprovoked bombing of another country, is entwined in the past efforts of United Nations members who, with honest intentions, strived to make the planet a safer, more secure place after the horrors of World War II. The UN has become hobbled by its own members. The fact that the Security Council has five permanent members of which two are actively engaged in 'aggressor actions' against fellow UN members speaks for itself. That these five countries have veto powers is beyond comprehension, and makes a mockery of the United Nations concept. President Trump, egged on by Benjamin Netanyahu, obviously never thought it through when he mulled over the idea of bombing Iran's alleged nuclear facilities. Australia has to tread carefully here and rethink its alliance with a potentially dangerous ally. David Legat, South Morang Iranian risks downplayed In downplaying Iran's threat to Israel, Geoffrey Robertson neither mentions the Iranian regime's 46-year-long commitment to destroy the Jewish state, nor that due to Iran, for over 20 months Israel has been fighting a war on as many as seven fronts. (And it's Israel who Iran primarily refers to as Little Satan, not the UK). Robertson is just another Israel critic who not only attempts to criminalise Israel's right to self defence, but who also condemns any other nation that assists Israel to this end. His likening of Saddam Hussein's 'mythical weapons of mass destruction' to Iran's nuclear program is absurd, given the atomic watchdog's explicit concerns about Iran's large stockpile of near weapons-grade uranium. Geoff Feren, St Kilda East Not all citizens In an effort to reduce conflating toxic governments with innocent people can we all make a concerted effort to add 'government' after talking about countries involved in current conflicts – Iran, Israel, Palestine, Russia, US – the list goes on. From talking to people from many of these countries in recent days, it strikes me that this distinction would make a difference to the racism experienced by citizens who did not ask to be led by dictators and zealots. Sara McMillan, Frankston South Slavish support As more reports surface that the US bombing of Iran was against international law, our relationship with the US seems to be undergoing change, (' PM stance marks shift from past ', 24/6). Our PM has now endorsed the attack, saying nothing about the legality of the action Australia must consider. Do we uphold international law or are we slavishly committed to support the US, the AUKUS deal and the erratic actions of Donald Trump? We can't have it both ways. For me, the law wins. Lorel Thomas, Blackburn South Nuclear powers Your correspondent seemingly sees no difference between the governments of Iran and Russia, and Israel and the US (Letters, 23/6), or why some can have nuclear weapons but Iran can't. Israel's Netanyahu is a democratically elected leader, like Trump, and has been fighting wars started and forced on his country by Iran and its proxies. They are determined to destroy the Jewish state, just as Russia is to destroy Ukraine. Neither the US nor Israel intend to destroy any state. Iran's regime, like Russia's, is autocratic, oppresses its own people, and strives for regional hegemony. Iran does so by having its proxies destabilise and cause violence throughout the region. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a total disaster for any prospect of Middle East peace. Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, which entitled it to international assistance in accessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in exchange for refraining from developing nuclear weapons. It is clearly in breach of this agreement. Mark Kessel, Caulfield North History repeats Talk of regime change has reminded Age correspondents of disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surviving CIA patriots who pursued US strategic and business interests in places like Central America, Vietnam, the Congo, Brazil and Chile – and many more – should probably be confined to their retirement communities. Norman Huon, Port Melbourne
