US to partially evacuate embassy in Iraq over security threats
Non-essential US embassy staff and their dependants in Baghdad are evacuating from Iraq due to heightened security risks, US government sources said on Wednesday.
Officials did not say exactly what prompted the removal, however in recent days talks over Iran's nuclear programme appear to have stalled.
A US state department official told the BBC: "We are constantly assessing the appropriate personnel posture at all our embassies.
"Based on our latest analysis, we decided to reduce the footprint of our mission in Iraq."
US President Donald Trump told a podcast on Wednesday that he was growing less confident that a deal could be reached over Iran's nuclear programme.
The US wants Iran to stop enriching uranium, which can be used to create a nuclear bomb, in exchange for easing economic sanctions.
Iranian Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said his country would retaliate against US bases in the region if talks fail and Trump orders military strikes against Iran.
Reuters reports that US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth also approved the voluntary departure of families of US military personnel from countries across the Middle East, including Kuwait and Bahrain.
Also on Wednesday, the UK's Maritime Trade Operations organisation - part of the Royal Navy - issued a warning saying that increased military tensions in the Middle East could affect shipping.
The price of oil initially increased more than 4% when news of the US evacuation broke, in anticipation of regional insecurity potentially leading to supply problems.
Around 2,500 US troops are based in Iraq, according to the defence department.
Additional reporting by Tom Bateman in Washington
What is Iran's nuclear programme and what does the US want?
US sends nuclear deal proposal to Iran
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Global EV sales rise in May as China hits 2025 peak -Rho Motion
By Jesus Calero (Reuters) -Global sales of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles rose 24% in May compared with the same period a year ago, as strength in China offset slower growth in North America, according to market research firm Rho Motion. Electric vehicle sales in China surpassed over one million units in a single month for the first time this year, driven by strong domestic demand and targeted export efforts from Chinese manufacturers, notably BYD, tapping into emerging markets. BYD's exports to Mexico and Southeast Asia, along with Uzbekistan, have significantly boosted sales in these regions, Rho Motion data manager Charles Lester said. Fleet incentives in Germany and robust growth in Southern Europe helped lift the European market, while the expiry of Canadian subsidies dragged on North American demand, he added. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT Global automakers face a 25% import tariff in the United States, the world's second-largest car market, causing many of them to withdraw their outlooks for 2025. In Europe, new incentives for fleet buyers in Germany are expected to support electric car sales through the second half of the year. Tesla's Model Y production in Berlin shields it from tariffs, yet it faces market share pressures as production ramps up globally amidst shifting trade tensions. President Donald Trump's stance towards emissions standards and uncertainties around tariffs has also hampered EV growth in North America. In the U.S., tax credits for EVs are still available but will begin phasing out from 2026, contributing to hesitation among buyers. BY THE NUMBERS Global sales of battery-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids rose to 1.6 million units in May, Rho Motion data showed. Sales in China grew more than 24% from the same month last year to 1.02 million vehicles. Europe posted a 36.2% increase to 0.33 million units, while North American sales edged up just 7.5% to 0.16 million. Sales in the rest of the world rose 38% to 0.15 million vehicles. KEY QUOTE "The story this month with global vehicle sales is the continued chasm between Chinese market growth versus the faltering market in North America," Charles Lester said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNBC
35 minutes ago
- CNBC
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."
Buzz Feed
39 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Conservative Ideal America Video Goes Viral
If there's one thing conservatives love to do, it's making American cities feel like dangerous, scary trash heaps that are constantly burning to the ground. To them, New York is unlivable, Minneapolis was a war zone, and now, all eyes are on Los Angeles — a city Donald Trump claims was "once great" but is now being "invaded" by "illegal aliens and criminals." As someone who actually lives in LA, I can tell you that narrative is completely detached from reality. First of all, LA wasn't "once great" — it's always been great, and it's always been an immigrant city, which, contrary to conservative panic, isn't a flaw. It's the foundation. The name is LOS ANGELES, remember? Second of all, the city isn't under "attack" by "criminals and illegal aliens" — fear-mongering buzzwords the right loves to throw around to paint a false picture of chaos. Quite the opposite, actually. In truth, LA is hurting not because of its people, but because ICE is barging into homes and workplaces. The fear here isn't coming from the streets. It's coming from our own federal government. People have been protesting peacefully. Things didn't escalate until Trump sent in 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines. Yesterday, a coworker told me what's usually a 12-minute drive home downtown took him half an hour because the National Guard, not protesters or even local police, were standing around clogging the streets. Even Gov. Gavin Newsom called the move "reckless," "pointless," and "disrespectful to our troops" in a post on X. "This isn't about public safety. It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego," he said. And yet, conservative media keeps pretending the city is being overrun by "insurrectionist mobs" (lest we forget who actually did storm the Capitol). Most people are still just trying to live their lives — working, commuting, taking care of their families — but now under the added weight of fear, anger, and disruption. The protests are mostly peaceful and, relative to the size of LA, contained. Genuinely, I don't think people realize how big this damn city is. It is not the same. Alas, this brings me to everyone's not-so-favorite conservative grifter: Charlie Kirk, who tried to contrast the moment by posting a clip of a "small town" set to the country song "Small Town USA." He wrote, "I wonder why America's small towns are so placid, lovely, and orderly. It's a total mystery." In the clip, a girl proudly shows off her idyllic idea of "small" town Americana. She shows us a covered porch with an American flag: A parade with American flag-waving locals: Cops on horseback: A pickup truck strolling by: A tractor strolling by: And, naturally, racks of American flag merch. She also takes us to a farmer's market. A lake house (with, you guessed it, more American flags). And a beach-themed bar. You get the picture: "placid," patriotic, white. As someone from Michigan myself, I instantly recognized the town; it's Rockford, MI, a wealthy suburb just outside Grand Rapids, the second largest city in the state. And many others did too, pointing out another crucial detail about this "lovely" little town: it voted blue in the last two presidential elections. "I love how every time these LARPers post 'small town' and 'real American' content to contrast with L.A. its always affluent suburbs that vote Democratic," one viral tweet said. Another pointed out: "because this town voted for harris by a 52–45 margin." Note: The Kent County margin was 52-46, rounded. Even former Republican Rep. Justin Amash weighed in: "This is Rockford, Michigan, which is a suburb of Grand Rapids, and part of the congressional district I represented. Rockford voted for Biden over Trump in 2020 and Harris over Trump in 2024. I didn't vote for any of those candidates. Just reporting the facts." Another person also remarked the absurdity of calling the area a "small town": "I love the framing of Rockford being a small town lol. 3rd biggest high school in GR and is essentially an annex of the city. But tractor on street." "This is clearly not a small town, which would be obvious if you'd ever spent time in one," another added. And while the county has recently leaned blue, it's still very white — Kent County is 72% white, compared to the national average of 58%. That might explain why Charlie Kirk was drawn to the video in the first place, which, notably, featured almost no Black or brown people. "So what Charlie Kirk is implying here is that small American towns are nice because there are no brown people," one person tweeted. "They don't even hide the blatant racism anymore," added another. All in all, this tweet may have said it best: "People who live in small towns are scared of cities, and people who live in cities are scared of small towns. People who have lived in both are only scared of small towns." As someone who's lived in both small towns (in Michigan too!) and now Los Angeles, I can't say I disagree. But, as always, let me know your thoughts in the comments.
