The Take: Why US troops are concerned about Trump's deployment
US President Donald Trump has deployed hundreds of troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against immigration raids. It's been widely considered to be an illegal deployment. Meanwhile, hotlines to support service members have been seeing an uptick in complaints and questions. What happens when those in uniform are ordered to confront the very people they swore to protect?
In this episode:
Episode credits:
This episode was produced by Amy Walters, Sonia Bhagat, and Chloe K. Li with Phillip Lanos, Spencer Cline, Melanie Marich, and our guest host, Manny Rapalo. It was edited by Kylene Kiang and Noor Wazwaz.
Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editor is Hisham Abu Salah. Alexandra Locke is the Take's executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera's head of audio.
Connect with us:
@AJEPodcasts on Instagram, X, Facebook, Threads and YouTube
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Did Trump approve Israel's attack on Iran, and is the US preparing for war?
As the conflict between Iran and Israel escalates, United States President Donald Trump's administration is offering mixed signals about whether it still backs a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear programme. Publicly, it has backed a negotiated agreement, and US and Iranian negotiators had planned to meet again this week. As recently as Thursday, Trump insisted in a Truth Social post: 'We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution.' But 14 hours later as Israel began its attacks on Iran, Trump posted that he had given Iran a 60-day deadline to reach an agreement – and that the deadline had passed. By Sunday, Trump was insisting that 'Israel and Iran should make a deal' and they would with his help. On Monday as Trump prepared to leave the Group of Seven summit in Canada early, his warnings grew more ominous: He posted that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and 'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' The US president later denied speculation that he had returned to Washington, DC, early to negotiate a ceasefire, noting that it was for something 'much bigger than that'. Trump's ambiguous statements have fuelled debate among analysts about the true extent of US involvement and intentions in the Israel-Iran conflict. Trump has denied any US involvement in the strikes. 'The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight,' he wrote on Sunday. Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the US-based Arms Control Association, said Trump's messaging had been clear. 'I think that President Trump has been very clear in his opposition to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was playing out. And reporting suggests that he pushed back against [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,' she said. What's more likely, Davenport said, is that 'Israel was worried that diplomacy would succeed, that it would mean a deal' and 'that it did not view [this as] matching its interests and objectives regarding Iran'. Richard Nephew, a professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, agreed, saying it was Trump's consistent march towards a deal that troubled Israel. 'I think it is that consistency that's actually been the thing that's the problem,' said Nephew, who served as director for Iran at the US National Security Council from 2011 to 2013 under then-President Barack Obama. But Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at St Andrews University in Scotland, disagreed. 'The US was aware. … Even if the specific timing did surprise them, they must have been aware, so a wink is about right,' he told Al Jazeera. 'At the same time, the US view is that Israel must take the lead and should really do this on their own,' he said. Israel is believed to have destroyed the above-ground section of Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. The facility has enriched uranium to 60 percent purity – far above the 3.67 percent needed for nuclear power but below the 90 percent purity needed for an atomic bomb. Power loss at Natanz as a result of the Israeli strike may have also damaged the underground enrichment section at Natanz, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But in the IAEA's assessment, Israel did not damage Iran's other uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain and also enriches uranium to 60 percent purity. 'It's likely that Israel would need US support if it actually wanted to penetrate some of these underground facilities,' Davenport said, pointing to the largest US conventional bomb, the 13,600kg (30,000lb) Massive Ordnance Penetrator. '[With] repeated strikes with that munition, you could likely damage or destroy some of these facilities,' Davenport said, noting that Washington 'has not transferred that bomb to Israel'. Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a US-based think tank, also told Al Jazeera that Israel would need US weapons to complete its stated mission of destroying Iran's nuclear programme. Nephew, for one, did not discount the chances of that happening. 'We know that [Trump] likes to be on the side of winners. To the extent that he perceives the Israelis as winners right now, that is the reason why he is maintaining his position and why I think we have a wink [to Israel],' he said. On Friday, the US flew a large number of midair-refuelling planes to the Middle East and ordered the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz to sail there. On Tuesday, it announced it was sending more warplanes to the region. Ansari agreed that the initial success of Israel's attacks could mean that 'Trump is tempted to join in just to get some of the glory,' but he thinks this could force Iran to stand down. 'It may well be that the US does join in on an attack on Fordow although I think even the genuine threat of an American attack will bring the Iranians to the table,' Ansari said. 'They can concede – with honour – to the United States; they can't to Israel, though they may have no choice.' Wary of American involvement, US Senator Tim Kaine introduced a war powers resolution on Monday that would require the US Congress to authorise any military action against Iran. 'It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States,' Kaine said. Obama did not believe a military solution was attractive or feasible for Iran's nuclear programme, and he opted for a diplomatic process that resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. That agreement called for the IAEA to monitor all of Iran's nuclear activities to ensure that uranium enrichment only reached the levels required for energy production. According to Nephew and Davenport, Trump indirectly fanned the flames of the military option when he pulled the US out of the JCPOA as president in 2018 at Israel's behest. Two years later, Iran said it would enrich uranium to 4.5 percent purity, and in 2021, it refined it to 20 percent purity. In 2023, the IAEA said it had found uranium particles at Fordow enriched to 83.7 percent purity. Trump offered no alternative to the JCPOA during his first presidential term, nor did President Joe Biden after him. 'Setting [the JCPOA] on fire was a direct contribution to where we are today,' Nephew said. Seeking a military path instead of a diplomatic one to curtail a nuclear programme 'contributes to a proliferation path', he said, 'because countries say, 'The only way I can protect myself is if I go down this path.'' Davenport, an expert on the nuclear and missile programmes of Iran and North Korea, said even the regime change in Tehran that Netanyahu has called for wouldn't solve the problem. 'Regime change is not an assured nonproliferation strategy,' she said. 'We don't know what would come next in Iran if this regime were to fall. If it were the military seizing control, nuclear weapons might be more likely. But even if it were a more open democratic government, democracies choose to build nuclear weapons too.'
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
India's Modi maintains there was no US mediation in Pakistan ceasefire
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made it clear to United States President Donald Trump that a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after a four-day conflict in May was achieved through talks between the two militaries and not US mediation, a top diplomat in New Delhi says. 'PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-U.S. trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan,' Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a press statement on Wednesday. 'Talks for ceasing military action happened directly between India and Pakistan through existing military channels, and on the insistence of Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi emphasised that India has not accepted mediation in the past and will never do,' he said. Misri said the two leaders spoke over the phone late on Tuesday on Trump's insistence after the two leaders were unable to meet on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada, which Modi attended as a guest. The call lasted 35 minutes. Trump had said last month that the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours agreed to the ceasefire after talks mediated by the US, and that the hostilities ended after he urged the countries to focus on trade instead of war. There was no immediate comment from the White House on the Modi-Trump call. Pakistan has previously said the ceasefire was agreed after its military returned a call the Indian military had initiated on May 7. In an interview with Al Jazeera in May, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar rejected claims that Washington mediated the truce and insisted Islamabad acted independently. The conflict between India and Pakistan was triggered by an April 22 attack in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, in which 26 civilians, almost all tourists, were killed. India blamed armed groups allegedly backed by Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denied. On May 7, India launched missile strikes at multiple sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Over the next three days, the two countries exchanged artillery and air raids, hitting each other's airbases. Pakistan said at least 51 people, including 11 soldiers and several children, were killed in Indian attacks. India's military said at least five members of the armed forces were killed in Operation Sindoor, under which it launched the cross-border strikes. Misri said Trump expressed his support for India's fight against 'terrorism' and that Modi told him Operation Sindoor was still on.
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
The Take: Why US troops are concerned about Trump's deployment
US President Donald Trump has deployed hundreds of troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against immigration raids. It's been widely considered to be an illegal deployment. Meanwhile, hotlines to support service members have been seeing an uptick in complaints and questions. What happens when those in uniform are ordered to confront the very people they swore to protect? In this episode: Episode credits: This episode was produced by Amy Walters, Sonia Bhagat, and Chloe K. Li with Phillip Lanos, Spencer Cline, Melanie Marich, and our guest host, Manny Rapalo. It was edited by Kylene Kiang and Noor Wazwaz. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editor is Hisham Abu Salah. Alexandra Locke is the Take's executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera's head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Instagram, X, Facebook, Threads and YouTube
