Iran Sells Russia Drones And Missiles To Kill Ukrainians And Trump Doesn't Care
Iran has earned at least tens of millions of dollars, perhaps many hundreds of millions, from its agreement to supply weapons to Russia over the past two years. And while that deal drew new sanctions against both countries under former President Joe Biden, it appears to have received no pushback from Trump.
'Not sure why specifically the Trump administration is not making this an issue with Russia,' said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in its early years after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
'The Trump administration has not addressed the 'Axis of Upheaval' as it was called under Biden — the increasing cooperation between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea — in a forceful way,' said Liana Fix, a Ukraine analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations.
When asked by HuffPost why he has not done anything to stop Iranian drone and missile sales to Russia, even as the U.S. cracks down on Iranian oil sales, Trump — who has long defended Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and who initially called Putin's 2022 invasion a 'genius' move — did not answer the question and instead offered a rambling explanation acknowledging the lethality of Iranian drones.
'I'm getting reports on that and we're looking at a report. You're right, they make a lot of drones. Iran makes a lot of drones. They make very effective drones too. They do very effectively at some things. But Iran is very high on my list of things to watch,' he said during a recent Oval Office question-and-answer session.
HuffPost's follow-up queries to the White House, the Treasury Department and the State Department on this topic all went unanswered over a period of weeks.
As Russia depleted its own stocks of weaponry in the first year of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it turned to North Korea for artillery rounds and to Iran for sophisticated short-range ballistic missiles and drones, including the notorious Shahed-136.
That relationship continues, even after Trump's Feb. 4 'maximum pressure' memorandum designed to deny 'the regime and its terror proxies access to revenue.'
Yet even the language of the order avoids any mention of Iran's new alliance with Russia. It states that Iran 'bears responsibility' for Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the Houthi rebels' ongoing attacks on Red Sea shipping — but does not say a word about Russia's use of Iranian arms to kill Ukrainians.
An April 1 announcement of new sanctions by the Treasury Department regarding Iran's weapons sales names entities in Iran, the United Arab Emirates and China — but fails to address Russia at all.
'It is apparently unwilling to pressure Putin in any meaningful way,' said Pifer, who is now with the Brookings Institution. 'If it wanted to, it has significant potential leverage over Moscow. The U.S. government could tighten economic sanctions and work with G7 to seize frozen Russian Central Bank assets. It should have started to apply some of this leverage after it became clear that Putin did not accept the U.S. proposal for a full 30-day ceasefire.'
That Iran is getting a pass on its sale of deadly weapons to Russia is just one of numerous signs that, under Trump, the United States has effectively switched sides on the Ukraine war.
Instead of supporting the victim of the largest invasion in Europe since World War II as the U.S. did under Biden, the country is now backing the aggressor and its dictator as Russia continues to kill civilians in Ukrainian cities.
'Trump has basically made enough concessions to Russia already that he is objectively on Russia's side,' said John Bolton, one of Trump's national security advisers during his first term. 'After all, he thinks he and Putin are friends. That's the strategy.'
The day after a missile attack murdered 38 in the town of Sumy as residents were celebrating Palm Sunday, Trump during an Oval Office photo opportunity suggested that somehow Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was responsible.
'You don't start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles,' he told reporters. 'When you start a war, you got to know you can win.'
Days earlier, Trump adviser Steven Witkoff suggested the best way to end the war would be to allow Russia to keep four eastern provinces, or 'oblasts' — a concession that would reward Putin for having invaded his neighbor and killed tens of thousands of its citizens.
Then, on Wednesday, the United States was among just nine countries, Russia and Belarus among them, to vote against a United Nations resolution naming Russia as the aggressor in the conflict. The U.S. had in February voted against a resolution calling on Russia to withdraw from Ukraine.
In another photo opportunity on Friday, Trump denied that Putin was manipulating him and then blamed Putin's invasion on his predecessor, Biden. 'This is Biden's war,' he said.
'We have switched sides both literally, including in terms of multiple U.N. votes on which we sided with Moscow over our allies, and in spirit, in the sense that we no longer stand on the side of democracy, freedom and independence,' said Ned Price, a former spokesman for the National Security Council in the Barack Obama White House and for the State Department under Biden.
Added Olivia Troye, a White House national security adviser during Trump's first term: 'I said this would happen if Trump got elected and here we are. It's happening. We are abandoning Ukraine officially and siding with dictators.'
'Everything this administration is doing seems to be in alliance with Russia,' she added. 'My worry is that by the time Americans wake up and realize this — MAGA included — and regret it, it will be too late. The significant damage is happening right now before our very eyes, and most don't see it or understand it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
31 minutes ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
31 minutes ago
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.'
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Majority of ICE arrests in Trump's first 5 months were in these states
Most of the more than 109,000 arrests carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the first five months of President Trump's second term took place in border and Southern states, according to a CBS News analysis of government data. States in the southern U.S., as well as those along the border with Mexico, saw the highest levels of ICE arrests between the start of Mr. Trump's second term on Jan. 20 and June 27, the figures show. That continued a trend that predates the current administration, though ICE arrests have increased sharply across the country since last year. During the same time period in 2024, under the Biden administration, ICE made over 49,000 arrests, meaning that arrests by the agency have increased by 120% under the Trump administration. The statistics indicate that Texas saw nearly a quarter of all ICE arrests during that time period. About 11% of ICE arrests occurred in Florida and 7% in California, followed by 4% in Georgia and 3% in Arizona. ICE made the fewest arrests in Vermont, Alaska and Montana, about 100 total apprehensions combined. The locations of a small percentage of the arrests could not be discerned from the dataset, which was obtained by a group known as the Deportation Data Project through litigation. Overall, the individuals arrested by ICE between Jan. 20 and June 27 came from nearly 180 countries, but most were from Latin America or the Caribbean, according to the data. Mexico was the most common country of citizenship, with nearly 40,000 of those taken into ICE custody listed as Mexican citizens. Nationals of Guatemala and Honduras followed with around 15,000 and 12,000, respectively. Nearly 8,000 were citizens of Venezuela and over 5,000 of El Salvador. Immigration experts said the concentration of arrests in Southern and border states is not necessarily surprising and can largely be attributed to geography, demographics and the extent to which local law enforcement agencies cooperate with ICE. Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, explained that ICE tends to focus its resources in areas where local policies permit law enforcement interaction with federal immigration authorities, such as Texas and Florida. Other places, like California, may also see high levels of ICE arrests because they have large communities of immigrants, including those in the U.S. illegally, even though state and local policies limit collaboration with ICE. "It's easier for ICE to be picking people up from state and local jails where there's cooperation," Bush-Joseph said. In cities and states with so-called sanctuary policies, "ICE has to spend more resources picking up people for at-large arrests," she added. Bush-Joseph also noted the countries of origin for those arrested by ICE align with broader immigration trends. "Generally, we're talking about countries that are geographically close" to the U.S., she said. Latin American and Caribbean immigrants accounted for 84% of all unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2023, according to a recent report from the Migration Policy Institute. ICE is responsible for arresting, detaining and deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, as well as other noncitizens who lose their legal status, including because of criminal activity. The agency has been given a sweeping mandate by Mr. Trump, tasked with carrying out his campaign promise of overseeing the largest mass deportation effort in American history. Under the Trump administration, ICE has reversed Biden-era limits on arrests in the interior of the country and allowed deportation agents to arrest a broader group of individuals, including those who are in the U.S. illegally but who lack a criminal record. Todd Lyons, the acting ICE director, told CBS News recently that while his agents are still prioritizing the arrest of violent offenders who are in the U.S. illegally, anyone found to be in the country in violation of federal immigration law will be taken into custody. Halfway into Mr. Trump's first year back in the White House, ICE recorded 150,000 deportations, putting the agency on track to carry out the most removals since the Obama administration, over a decade ago, CBS News reported. The tally is still far short of the 1 million annual deportations Trump officials have said they're targeting. Watch: Hawaii Gov. Josh Green gives update on tsunami warning Tennessee manhunt underway for suspect in killings of abandoned baby's relatives Arkansas officials reveal new details about Devil's Den murders of husband and wife
