AUKUS review raises concerns over defense ties under Trump
SYDNEY -- The announcement of a U.S. review of the AUKUS defense agreement has reignited debate about Australia's deal to obtain nuclear-powered submarines, fueling concerns that the pact could become leverage in Washington's push for Canberra to increase defense spending.
The Pentagon on Wednesday said Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby would lead a review of the pact between Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. to determine whether it fits with the current administration's "America First" agenda.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
Pizza delivery monitor alerts to secret Israel attack
The timing of Israel's plan to attack Iran was top secret. But Washington pizza delivery trackers guessed something was up before the first bombs fell. About an hour before Iranian state TV first reported loud explosions in Tehran, pizza orders around the Pentagon went through the roof, according to a viral X account claiming to offer "hot intel" on "late-night activity spikes" at the U.S. military headquarters. "As of 6:59 pm ET nearly all pizza establishments nearby the Pentagon have experienced a HUGE surge in activity," the account, Pentagon Pizza Report, posted Thursday. Not confining its analysis to pizza, the account noted three hours later that a gay bar near the Pentagon had "abnormally low traffic for a Thursday night," and said this probably pointed to "a busy night at the Pentagon." While far from scientific, the Pentagon pizza theory "is not something the internet just made up," The Takeout, an online site covering restaurants and food trends, noted earlier this year. Pentagon-adjacent pizza joints also got much busier than usual during Israel's 2024 missile strike on Iran, it said, as there are "a multitude of fast food restaurants in the Pentagon complex, but no pizza places." Pizza deliveries to the Pentagon reportedly doubled right before the U.S. invasion of Panama in December 1989, and surged again before Operation Desert Storm in 1991. President Donald Trump told The Wall Street Journal he was fully aware in advance of the bombing campaign, which Israel says is needed to end Iran's nuclear program. "We know what's going on." For the rest of Americans, pepperoni pie activity was not the only way to tell something was about to happen. Washington had already announced it was moving some diplomats and their families out of the Middle East on Wednesday. And close to an hour before Israel unleashed its firepower on Iran, the U.S. ambassador in Jerusalem, Mike Huckabee, sent out a rather revealing X post: "At our embassy in Jerusalem and closely monitoring the situation. We will remain here all night. 'Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!'"
Japan Today
6 hours ago
- Japan Today
Israel attack on Iran tests Trump promise not to be dragged into war
Israel's massive strikes on Iran can potentially set up a showdown with Donald Trump's base as he decides how much support the United States will offer By Shaun TANDON For President Donald Trump, few goals on the world stage have been more explicit -- he will not drag the United States into another "forever war." Yet Israel's massive strikes on Iran will test that promise as never before, potentially setting up a showdown with his base as Trump decides how much support the United States will offer. Trump had publicly called for Israel not to strike as he sought a negotiated solution, and his roving envoy Steve Witkoff had been scheduled to meet Iranian officials for the sixth time Sunday. Trump, who hours earlier warned that a strike would cause "massive conflict," afterward praised Israeli strikes as "excellent" and boasted that Israel had "the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the world" thanks to the United States -- and was planning more strikes unless Iran agrees on a deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, has insisted that the United States was not involved in the strikes and warned Iran not to retaliate against the thousands of U.S. troops stationed in nearby Arab countries. "The US has calculated that it can help Israel and that the Iranians will obviously be aware of this, but at the end of the day, at least at the public level, the U.S. stays out," said Alex Vatanka, founding director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute in Washington. The hope is that "the Iranians will do a quick cost/benefit analysis and decide it is not worth the fight," Vatanka said. He said Iranian leaders are for now focused on staying alive, but could decide either to swallow a tough deal -- or to internationalize the conflict further by causing chaos in the oil-rich Gulf, potentially sending oil prices soaring and pressuring Trump. Most key lawmakers of Trump's Republican Party quickly rallied behind Israel, whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a hero for many on the U.S. right. But Trump's populist "America First" base has been skeptical. Tucker Carlson, the prominent media commentator who counseled Trump against a U.S. strike on Iran in the first term, has called fears of Tehran building a nuclear bomb overblown, saying neither Iran nor Ukraine warrants US military resources. Trump has brought outspoken non-interventionists into his administration. In an unusually political video this week, Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, warned after a visit to Hiroshima that "warmongers" were putting the world at risk of nuclear catastrophe. In a speech in Riyadh last month, Trump denounced decades of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East and said, "My greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and to be a unifier. I don't like war." Daniel Shapiro, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under former president Barack Obama, said he was certain the United States would support Israel in defense against Iranian retaliation. But Trump will face a harder decision on "whether to use the United States' unique capabilities to destroy Tehran's underground nuclear facilities and prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon," said Shapiro, now at the Atlantic Council. "The decision will split his advisers and political base, amid accusations, and perhaps his own misgivings, that Netanyahu is attempting to drag him into war." Lawmakers of the rival Democratic Party widely revile Netanyahu, including over Israel's bloody offensive in Gaza. "This attack by Netanyahu is pure sabotage," said Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro. "What does 'America First' even mean if Trump allows Netanyahu to drag the country into a war Americans don't want?" he wrote on social media. Netanyahu has long insisted that Iran's ruling clerics -- who support Hamas in Gaza -- pose an existential threat to Israel. The strikes came after Iran defiantly said it would ramp up output of highly enriched uranium, playing hardball ahead of U.S. talks. Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the progressive Center for International Policy, said that China -- identified by Trump as the top threat -- could seize the moment, perhaps by moving on Taiwan, as it sees the United States as even more distracted. "Even without direct involvement, Washington now faces the prospect of indefinite resupply, intelligence and diplomatic backing for Israel, just as the war in Ukraine intensifies and global crises multiply," Toossi said. "Wars are easy to ignite, but once unleashed, they tend to spiral beyond control, and rarely end on the terms of those who start them." © 2025 AFP
Japan Today
a day ago
- Japan Today
Hegseth says the Pentagon has contingency plans to invade Greenland, Panama if necessary
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fields questions on the Pentagon budget from the House Armed Services Committee, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, June 12, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) By LOLITA C. BALDOR and TARA COPP U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary but refused to answer repeated questions at a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations. Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded yes or no answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief. In one back-and-forth, Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., asked whether the Pentagon has developed plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary. 'Our job at the Defense Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Hegseth said several times. It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later. 'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' said Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio. As Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.' 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Hegseth responded. Time and again, lawmakers pressed Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over. "You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead," Rep. Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat's voice rising. 'You should just get the hell out.' GOP lawmakers on several occasions apologized to Hegseth for the Democrats' sharp remarks, saying he should not be subject to such 'flagrant disrespect.' Hegseth said he was 'happy to take the arrows' to make tough calls and do what's best. Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss details of the U.S. plans to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen with other U.S. leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with lawmakers. Hegseth was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did. Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed with lawmakers. That became a quick trap, as Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity. 'You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,' Moulton said. 'What's not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,' Hegseth responded. A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon. Moulton asked Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app. Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves 'at the pleasure of the president.' He was asked if he would apologize to the mother of a pilot flying the strike mission for jeopardizing the operation and putting her son's life at risk. Hegseth said, 'I don't apologize for success.' Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared along Hegseth, was questioned about Trump's speech at Fort Bragg this week and whether the military was becoming politicized. The Defense Department has a doctrine that prohibits troops from participating in political activity while in uniform. Members of the 82nd Airborne Division were directed to stand behind Trump at Fort Bragg, and they booed and cheered during his incendiary remarks, including condemnation of his predecessor, Joe Biden. There also was a pop-up MAGA merchandise stand selling souvenirs to troops in uniform. Caine repeatedly said U.S. service members must be apolitical but that he was unaware of anything that happened at Fort Bragg. Hegseth got into a sharp debate about whether women and transgender service members should serve in the military or combat jobs. He said he has worked to remove diversity programs and political correctness from the military. He said he has not politicized the military but simply wants the most capable troops. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., demanded to know if Hegseth believes that both men and women can pull a trigger, cause death, operate a drone or launch a missile. 'It depends on the context,' Hegseth said, adding that 'women carry equipment differently, a 155 round differently, a rucksack differently.' Hegseth, who has previously said women 'straight up' should not serve in combat, asserted that women have joined the military in record numbers under the Trump administration. He said the military 'standards should be high and equal.' He also was asked about three female service members — now being forced out as part of the Pentagon's move to ban transgender troops. Hegseth agreed that their accomplishments — which Houlahan read out — were to be celebrated, until he learned they were transgender. Republican lawmakers jumped to his defense, criticizing any Pentagon spending on gender transition surgery. President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a U.S. ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland's leaders. 'Greenland is not for sale,' Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the U.S, said Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute. In an effort not to show the Pentagon's hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Hegseth danced around the direct question from Smith, leading to the confusion. 'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,' Smith said. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
