US Asks Israel To Probe ‘Terrorist' Killing Of American Citizen By Settlers Netanyahu
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
7 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Israeli military attacks Houthi targets in Yemen's Hodeidah port
The Israeli military attacked Houthi targets in Yemen's Hodeidah port on Monday (July 21, 2025) in its latest assault on the Iran-backed militants, who have been striking ships bound for Israel and launching missiles against it. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said the army was "forcefully countering any attempt to restore the terror infrastructure previously attacked." The Houthi-run Al Masirah TV said on Monday that a series of attacks on the port was under way, without providing any details. The Israeli military said in a statement that the port it attacked had been used "among other things, to transfer weapons from the Iranian regime, which are then used by the Houthi to execute terrorist attacks against the State of Israel and its allies." Since Israel's war in Gaza against the Palestinian militant group Hamas began in October 2023, the Iran-aligned Houthis have been attacking vessels in the Red Sea in what they say are acts of solidarity with the Palestinians. Israel has responded by launching attacks on Houthis, who control the most populous parts of Yemen, including the vital Hodeidah port. "As I have made clear – Yemen's fate is the same as Tehran's. The Houthis will pay a heavy price for launching missiles toward the State of Israel," Katz said. The Houthis' military spokesperson, Yahya Saree, said on Monday that the group attacked several targets in Israel with drones, which was in response to Israel's recent attack on Hodeidah port and the continued military campaign against Gaza. Earlier in July, the Houthis claimed responsibility for an attack on the Greek ship Eternity C that maritime officials say killed four of the 25 people aboard. In May, the United States announced a surprise deal with the Houthis where it agreed to stop a bombing campaign against them in return for an end to shipping attacks, though the Houthis said the deal did not include sparing Israel.
India Today
7 minutes ago
- India Today
Why U.S. military power is trapped in a loop of its own making
They say history repeats itself — but in America's case, it sometimes refuses to end. From the trenches of Europe to the deserts of the Middle East, the United States has fought, and continues to fight, wars that blur the lines between defence and domination, justice and justification. A century after entering the First World War, American troops are still deployed in more than 80 countries. Some conflicts fade from the headlines — yet they never truly This is the story of America's forever wars — open-ended military operations with no clear victory, no fixed timeline, and too often, no meaningful public debate. From World War to World PoliceThe United States entered World War to 'make the world safe for democracy'. The century that followed tested that promise repeatedly. In the post-1945 world, America fought in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Panama, and beyond. Since 1945, the U.S. has used military force in over 100 foreign interventions — with wildly varying wars lasted weeks. Others spanned decades. The Korean War never ended — it merely paused with an armistice in 1953. U.S. troops are still stationed on the Korean peninsula, 70 years on. The Vietnam War left nearly 60,000 Americans and over 2 million Vietnamese dead, ending in scenes of chaos rather than Without EndThe Cold War may have ended in the 1990s, but the interventions did not. In 1989, the U.S. invaded Panama. In 1991, it launched Operation Desert Storm in Iraq. In 1993, American forces intervened in Somalia. In 1999, they bombed Yugoslavia. And then came the so-called War on the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The justifications varied — from dismantling al-Qaeda to eliminating Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. But those WMDs were never found. Instead, war became a permanent fixture of U.S. foreign became America's longest war — 20 years, 2,400 U.S. soldiers killed, and over 170,000 Afghan lives lost. Even after the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011, the war continued for another decade. In Iraq, over 4,500 U.S. troops died, alongside up to 500,000 Iraqis. The power vacuum after Saddam's fall enabled the rise of Syria, U.S. forces have operated since 2015 with no formal declaration of war. In Yemen, the U.S. has supported the Saudi-led coalition, supplying weapons and intelligence despite mounting civilian casualties and a deepening humanitarian Machinery of Perpetual WarWhy can't America stop fighting?advertisementCritics point to a blend of policy, politics, and profit. A crucial legal mechanism is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) — passed in 2001, just days after 9/11. It has since been used by successive presidents to launch operations in 19 countries, bypassing Congress and public scrutiny. There is no geographic limit, no expiry date, no oversight. In effect, it's a blank cheque for numbers are staggering. Since 2001, the U.S. has spent over $8 trillion on its post-9/11 wars — including $2.3 trillion in Afghanistan and $1.9 trillion in Iraq and Syria. According to Brown University's Costs of War project, over 929,000 people have been killed in these wars, and more than 38 million have been aren't just financial or statistical costs. They are human Invisible War at HomeBut the impact isn't limited to foreign battlefields. The domestic consequences of perpetual war are profound. War, once a national emergency, has become background noise. There's no draft. No war tax. No shared burden. A small volunteer military fights overseas, while the rest of the country scrolls past the the Pentagon's budget keeps growing — topping $860 billion in 2024, more than the next 10 countries combined. Much of this money flows to private defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing — the backbone of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower famously warned about in logic of these forever wars is circular: instability demands presence; presence breeds backlash; backlash justifies further presence. The treadmill keeps turning — and stepping off seems politically the ThreatSince the early 2000s, the targets have changed — from al-Qaeda to ISIS, from terrorists to great power rivals. Today, U.S. troops conduct drone operations and low-intensity combat missions in Africa, while shifting strategic focus toward Russia and China. The War on Terror may be fading, but the Forever War architecture remains firmly more alarming, the tools of war have seeped into American civil life. To combat terrorism, Washington expanded surveillance, militarised policing, justified torture, and operated secret prisons. Civil liberties eroded, often with bipartisan support — and the public barely Question No One Wants to AnswerThe media moves on. Congress rarely intervenes. And presidents, regardless of party, continue the mission. War is rebranded, relocated, resold — but not 2021, President Biden withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan. The chaotic exit dominated headlines. But even as troops left Kabul, they redeployed elsewhere. The war machine, critics argue, never stopped — it merely how do these wars end?Veterans, whistleblowers, and peace activists argue that endless war erodes democracy and weakens global stability. They point to the psychological toll on soldiers, the rise of authoritarian policies, and the blowback that breeds new enemies faster than old ones are warning is clear: if war becomes the default state, democracy becomes an illusion. If conflict becomes identity, then peace becomes the end, America's forever wars pose a fundamental question: What does the United States gain by fighting endlessly? And what does the world lose when it cannot stop?Until those questions are seriously addressed — not just by policymakers but by citizens — the cycle will continue. The headlines may fade. But the bombs will fall. The costs will mount. And the war will go on.- Ends
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Not going to rush': Ahead of Trump's tariff deadline, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shares update; says ‘more concerned about…'
The US will not fast-track trade deals simply to meet deadlines, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said, signalling that the Trump administration remains focused on securing high-quality agreements even as a key tariff deadline approaches. In an interview with CNBC, Bessent stated, 'The Trump administration is more concerned with the quality of trade agreements rather than their timing. We're not going to rush for the sake of doing deals.' The remarks come ahead of the August 1 deadline, when tariffs on several US trade partners could kick in if talks fail to yield progress, according to an ET report. While describing the ongoing negotiations as 'moving along,' Bessent warned that failure to reach agreements could escalate trade tensions. 'If we boomerang on August 1 tariffs, higher tariffs could put more pressure on countries,' he said. Allies under pressure as US sticks to its terms Bessent pointed to growing engagement from the European Union, noting, 'They've become more engaged,' and said he expects Brussels may aim to speed up negotiations. 'I imagine they would want to negotiate faster,' he added. On Japan, Bessent clarified that Washington's focus remains firmly on securing the best outcomes for the US, not adapting to domestic political calendars in partner countries. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo 'Our priorities are not internal government but best deals for U.S.,' he said. Despite the approaching deadline, Bessent expressed confidence in the ongoing discussions. 'Trade is in a good place,' he said. Russia tariffs tied to political goals Touching on Russia, Bessent acknowledged that tariff measures can go beyond trade. 'Tariffs can be a means to political ends,' he said, referring to current conversations around sanctions. He also hinted at a possible joint strategy with allies, saying, 'Would urge Europe to follow us if we implement secondary tariffs,' without naming affected sectors or timelines. China discussions may restart, focus on overcapacity and oil On China, Bessent said talks could resume 'in the near future,' but flagged overcapacity as the primary concern. 'The elephant in the room with China is overcapacity,' he said, mentioning steel and solar as key pressure points. He also pointed to two new areas of concern that may enter future negotiations—Beijing's trade ties with Russia and its stance on Iranian oil. 'Could start talking about Iranian oil,' Bessent said, while adding that the US 'could discuss [China's] trade with Russia' as part of broader diplomatic talks. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
