Around Military Bases in the U.S., Unease Over What Comes Next
For some families who gathered this weekend at Fort Benning in Georgia, the past few days have served as a solemn reminder of the unsettling emotions military service can bring. On Friday, a group of Army enlistees graduated from basic training. On Saturday, President Trump bombed Iran. On Sunday, service members and their loved ones pondered an uncertain future.
'People can lose their life, so I'm worried,' said Michele Bixby, 24, of upstate New York, whose brother had just graduated. 'But it's what he wanted to do; it's what he loves to do. He's going to move forward with it no matter what.'
One day after the administration announced it had carried out airstrikes at three nuclear sites in Iran, the mood in some communities around military bases on U.S. soil varied from firm support to bitter disagreement. But one sentiment stood out among those interviewed: concern for the safety of America's troops everywhere.
No one knows how the strikes on Iran could affect service members. Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, emphasized on Sunday that the administration did not want an open-ended war. But Iranian leaders have vowed to retaliate, and U.S. military installations in the Middle East, with more than 40,000 active-duty troops and civilians employed by the Pentagon, are already potential targets.
That reality, along with the potential repercussions for the entire military, was on the minds of many people around U.S. bases at home, even as service members accepted that reality as part of the job.
'A lot of the families around here are quickly realizing this is a real threat; this is something we need to be worried about,' said Meghan Gilles, 37, a self-described military brat who works in the Army Reserve's human resources division at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, a training site and home to the 101st Airborne Division.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so significant?
While there have been no major disruptions to the global oil supply so far, the attacks on Iran – by Israel and then the US – have rattled investors, sending oil futures soaring by around 10%, among fears Iran could retaliate by disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. From the perspective of the global economy, there are few places as strategically important. The waterway, located between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. It's the only way to ship crude from the oil-rich Persian Gulf to the rest of the world. Iran controls its northern side. About 20 million barrels of oil, about one-fifth of daily global production, flow through the strait every day, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), which called the channel a 'critical oil chokepoint.' On Sunday evening, following US airstrikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities, Brent crude, the global benchmark, briefly surged above $80 per barrel, according to Refinitiv data, the first time that's happened since January. Before the conflict, prices had largely hovered between $60 and $75 a barrel since August 2024. Brent last traded at $78.2 per barrel, while WTI, the US benchmark, was at $75.06. Whether oil prices will climb further now depends on Iran's response. Rob Thummel, senior portfolio manager at energy investment firm Tortoise Capital, told CNN that a potential disruption to the Iran-controlled sea route would cause oil prices to surge toward $100 per barrel. A functioning Strait of Hormuz is 'absolutely essential' to the health of the global economy, he said. A prominent adviser to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has already called for the closure of the Strait. 'Following America's attack on the Fordow nuclear installation, it is now our turn,' warned Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, a well-known conservative voice who has previously identified himself as a 'representative' for Khamenei. Geographic leverage over global shipping gives Iran the 'capacity to cause a shock in oil markets, drive up oil prices, drive inflation, collapse Trump's economic agenda,' Mohammad Ali Shabani, an Iran expert and editor of the Amwaj news outlet, told CNN. When it comes to moving oil, the Strait is actually much narrower than its 21-mile official width. The navigable shipping lanes for massive supertankers are only about two miles wide in each direction, requiring vessels to pass through both Iranian and Omani territorial waters. A closure of the Strait will be particularly detrimental to Asian economies which rely on the crude oil and natural gas shipped through the route. The EIA estimates that 84% of the crude oil and 83% of the liquefied natural gas that moved through the Strait of Hormuz last year went to Asian markets. China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil, sourced 5.4 million barrels per day through the Strait of Hormuz in the first quarter this year, while India and South Korea imported 2.1 million and 1.7 million barrels per day, respectively, according to the EIA's estimates. In comparison, the US and Europe imported just 400,000 and 500,000 barrels per day, respectively, in the same period, according to the EIA. On Sunday, India's Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Hardeep Singh Puri sought to reassure jittery investors on X that the country has 'diversified' its oil supplies in the past few years. On Sunday, India's Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Hardeep Singh Puri said on X that the country has 'diversified' its oil supplies in the past few years. 'A large volume of our supplies do not come through the Strait of Hormuz now. Our Oil Marketing Companies have supplies of several weeks and continue to receive energy supplies from several routes,' he said. 'We will take all necessary steps to ensure stability of supplies of fuel to our citizens.' CNN's John Towfighi, Nadeen Ebrahim, and Rhea Mogul contributed reporting.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 is still fighting Supreme Court's ruling
The Kentucky county clerk who became known around the world for her opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage is still arguing in court that it should be overturned. Kim Davis became a cultural lightning rod 10 years ago, bringing national media and conservative religious leaders to eastern Kentucky as she continued for weeks to deny the licenses. She later met Pope Francis in Rome and was parodied on 'Saturday Night Live.' Kim Davis denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples Davis began denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Videos of a same-sex couple arguing with Davis in the clerk's office over their denial of a license drew national attention to her office. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015. Davis was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky Legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses. Davis cited her Christian faith Davis said her faith forbade her from what she saw as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Faith leaders and conservative political leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and then-Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin rallied to her cause. After her release from jail, Davis addressed the media, saying that issuing same-sex marriage licenses 'would be conflicting with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This would be an act of disobedience to my God.' Davis declined a request for an interview from The Associated Press for this story. A man who was denied a license ran for her office In 2018, one of the men who had confronted Davis over her defiance ran for her office. David Ermold said he believed people in Rowan County were sick of Davis and wanted to move on. When he went to file his papers for the Democratic primary, Davis, a Republican, was there in her capacity as clerk to sign him up. Sitting across a desk from each other, the cordial meeting contrasted the first time they met three years earlier. Both candidates lost; Ermold in the primary and Davis in the general election. She has not returned to politics. 10 years later, Davis wants the Supreme Court to reconsider same-sex marriage Davis' lawyers are attempting again to get her case before the Supreme Court, after the high court declined to hear an appeal from her in 2020. A federal judge has ordered Davis to pay a total of $360,000 in damages and attorney fees to Ermold and his partner. Davis lost a bid in March to have her appeal of that ruling heard by a federal appeals court, but she will appeal again to the Supreme Court. Her attorney, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, said the goal is affirm Davis' constitutional rights and 'overturn Obergefell.'
Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Shifting views and misdirection: How Trump decided to strike Iran
It was almost entirely a deception. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack. Less than 30 hours after Leavitt relayed his statement, he would give the order for an assault that put the United States in the middle of the latest conflict to break out in one of the world's most volatile regions. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump's 'two weeks' statement was just one aspect of a broader effort at political and military misdirection that took place over eight chaotic days, from the first Israeli strikes against Iran to the moment when a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers took off from Missouri for the first U.S. military strikes inside Iran since that country's theocratic revolution in 1979. Advertisement Interviews with administration officials, Trump allies and advisers, Pentagon officials and others familiar with the events show how, during this period, different factions of Trump's allies jockeyed to win over a president who was listing in all directions over whether to choose war, diplomacy or some combination. Advertisement Outsiders tried to divine which faction was ascendant based on whom Trump met with at any given time. Trump seemed almost gleeful in telling reporters that he could make a decision 'one second before it's due, because things change, especially with war.' All the while, Trump was making blustery statements indicating he was about to take the country into the conflict. 'Everyone should evacuate Tehran!' he wrote last Monday on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns. The following day, he posted that he had not left a meeting of the Group of 7 in Canada to broker a Middle East ceasefire but for something 'much bigger.' So, he told the world, 'Stay tuned!' These public pronouncements generated angst at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, where military planners began to worry that Trump was giving Iran too much warning about an impending strike. They built their own deception into the attack plan: a second group of B-2 bombers that would leave Missouri and head west over the Pacific Ocean in a way that flight trackers would be able to monitor Saturday. That left a misimpression, for many observers and presumably Iran, about the timing and path of the attack, which would come from another direction entirely. The strike plan was largely in place when Trump issued his Thursday statement about how he might take up to two weeks to decide to go to war with Iran. Refueling tankers and fighter jets had been moved into position, and the military was working on providing additional protection for U.S. forces stationed in the region. Advertisement While the 'two weeks' statement bought the president more time for last-minute diplomacy, military officials said that ruse and the head fake with the B-2s also had the effect of cleaning up a mess -- the telegraphing of the attack -- that was partly of the president's making. Asked to comment on the details of this article, Leavitt said the president and his team 'successfully accomplished one of the most complex and historic military operations of all time' regarding Iran's nuclear sites. She added that 'many presidents have talked about this, but only President Trump had the guts to do it.' A shifting tune Trump had spent the early months of his administration warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against a strike on Iran. But by the morning of Friday, June 13, hours after the first Israeli attacks, Trump had changed his tune. He marveled to advisers about what he said was a brilliant Israeli military operation, which involved a series of precision strikes that killed key figures in Iran's military leadership and blasted away strategic weapons sites. Trump took calls on his cellphone from reporters and began hailing the operation as 'excellent' and 'very successful' and hinting that he had much more to do with it than people realized. Later that day, Trump asked an ally how the Israeli strikes were 'playing.' He said that 'everyone' was telling him he needed to get more involved, including potentially dropping 30,000-pound GBU-57 bombs on Fordo, the Iranian uranium-enrichment facility buried underneath a mountain south of Tehran. The next day, the president told another adviser he was leaning toward using those 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, while taking pride in both the bomb's destructive power and the fact that the United States is the only country that has the bomb in its arsenal. The adviser left the conversation convinced that Trump had already decided to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Advertisement At the same time, the president's team was closely monitoring how their most prominent supporters were reacting on social media and on television to the prospect of the United States joining the war in a more visible way. They paid close attention to the statements of Tucker Carlson, the influential podcaster and former Fox News host, who was vehemently opposed to the United States joining Israel in taking on Iran. Trump became infuriated by some of Carlson's commentary and started complaining about him publicly and privately. Political advisers to Trump had been swapping notes on various public and private polls examining the popularity of military action against Iran, noting that American support for an operation depended in part on how pollsters asked the question. While polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want the United States to go to war with Iran, most Americans also did not want Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. The president was closely monitoring Fox News, which was airing wall-to-wall praise of Israel's military operation and featuring guests urging Trump to get more involved. Several Trump advisers lamented the fact that Carlson was no longer on Fox, which meant that Trump was not hearing much of the other side of the debate. Deliberations among administration officials about a possible American strike on Iran were in full swing by Sunday night, June 15, when Trump left for Canada for the G7 meeting. Trump seemed to his advisers to be inching closer to approving a strike, even as he told them that Israel would be foolish to try to assassinate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. Advertisement Moreover, he said, if the United States were to strike Iran, the goal should be to decimate its nuclear facilities, not to bring down its government. The 'biggest threat to Opsec' By then, a small group of top military officials at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, had already begun refining attack plans on the Fordo facility and other Iranian nuclear sites that military planners had drawn up years ago. The planning was led by Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the Centcom commander, and Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs. B-2 stealth bombers, based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, are the only warplanes capable of delivering the GBU-57 bombs without detection by Iranian radar. B-2 bomber pilots have done extensive rehearsals for extended-range missions like the one before them -- crossing the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, refueling multiple times before syncing up with fighter jets for the final flight leg into Iran. But even as the military planning was being conducted in secrecy, each of Trump's social media posts seemed to be telling the world what was coming. The president, said one military official, was the 'biggest threat to opsec,' or operational security, that the planning faced. To build confusion into the attack plan, military officials decided to have two groups of B-2 bombers leave Missouri around the same time. One group would fly westbound, toward Guam, with transponders on that could be tracked by commercial satellite companies. Another group of seven bombers, carrying a full payload of bombs and with their transponders off, flew east toward Iran, undetected. Advertisement During a news conference Sunday, hours after the U.S. strike, Caine called the Guam feint a 'decoy.' Shaping the conversation By Tuesday, June 17, Trump had largely made up his mind to strike Iran. But he took his coercive diplomacy to a new level, issuing menacing threats over social media. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' he posted on Truth Social, adding, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there -- We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He demanded, in all-caps, 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' By this point, several people in the anti-interventionist camp of Trump's advisers realized they most likely could not prevent the president from hitting the Iranian nuclear facilities. So, they turned their focus on trying to ensure the American war did not spiral into an expansive 'regime change' war. That day, June 17, Vice President JD Vance posted a long series of posts on social media that many within the anti-interventionist camp interpreted as him seeding the ground for a potential U.S. military operation and preemptively defending the president's likely decision. 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,' Vance wrote in the widely shared post. 'And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.' Prominent activists began working to shape the conversation for what was likely to come after the bombing: a debate about whether or not to engage in a war intended to bring about new leadership in Iran. 'Regime change has quickly become the newly stated goal of this operation,' wrote influential activist Charlie Kirk, in a social media post two days before the U.S. strikes. 'America should learn its lesson and not involve itself in a regime change war.' Even as Trump was posting his own hawkish statements, he was becoming annoyed as he watched pundits on television telegraph his likely strike against Fordo. He was infuriated when The Wall Street Journal reported that he had already given a green light to putting the pieces of the operation in place but had not given the final order. On Thursday, Trump was joined for lunch at the White House by Bannon, one of the most prominent critics of U.S. involvement in Israel's war with Iran. Some wishful thinkers in the anti-interventionist camp interpreted the meeting as a sign that Trump was getting cold feet. Leavitt reinforced that sentiment when she delivered Trump's statement, not long after Bannon arrived at the White House, indicating that he had given himself up to two weeks to make a decision, a time frame he often invoked for decisions on complex issues when he had no clear plan. But Trump had already dictated Leavitt's statement before he met with Bannon. It was a calculated misdirection intended to buy some breathing room for the president while suggesting that no attack was imminent. Up through that point, Trump had been willing to continue to listen to those skeptical about the Iran strike, and to hear arguments about its possibly dire consequences -- including for oil prices, civil war in Iran and a possible refugee crisis, in addition to the prospect of retaliatory attacks that could bring the United States into a sustained conflict. On Friday, Trump left the White House in the afternoon for a fundraising event at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, his main summer retreat, further feeding the impression that no attack was imminent. But within hours, around 5 p.m. Friday, Trump ordered the military to begin its Iran mission. Given the 18 hours it would take the B-2s to fly from Missouri to Iran, he knew he still had many more hours to change his mind, as he did at the last minute in 2019, when he ordered airstrikes against Iranian targets and then aborted them. But few in his administration believed he would pull back this time. A one-off, or not A complex and highly synchronized military operation began. Many hours after the two fleets of B-2s took off in opposite directions, the bombers bound for Iran joined up with fighter jets and flew into Iranian airspace. U.S. submarines launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles on the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan. As the planes approached Fordo and Natanz, the fighter jets swept in front of the bombers and fired strikes meant to suppress any surface-to-air missiles that Iran might muster, Caine said in the Pentagon briefing Sunday. At 2:10 a.m. Sunday morning Iran time, the lead bomber dropped two of the GBU-57 bombs on the Fordo site, buried deep under a mountainside and hundreds of feet of concrete. By the end of the mission, 14 of the 'bunker buster' bombs had been dropped, the first time they had ever been used in combat. Pentagon officials said Sunday that the U.S. bombers and jet fighters never encountered any enemy fire. Hours after the American aircraft had departed Iranian airspace, Trump gave a triumphant speech at the White House saying that the mission had 'completely and totally obliterated ' Iran's nuclear capabilities. He suggested that the war could end with this one-off mission if Iran would give up its nuclear program and negotiate. By Sunday afternoon, however, U.S. officials had tempered the optimism of the night before, saying that Iran's nuclear facilities might have been severely damaged, but not entirely destroyed. Vance acknowledged that there are questions about the whereabouts of Iran's stock of near-bomb-grade uranium. He and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that a regime change in Tehran -- which could mean a protracted U.S. engagement -- was not the goal. But Trump, whose operation was the subject of praise in news coverage not just from allies but some of his critics, had already moved on, hinting in a Truth Social post that his goals could be shifting. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,'' he wrote, 'but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' This article originally appeared in
