Trump officials to give first classified briefing to Congress on Iran strikes
WASHINGTON: Senators are set to meet with top national security officials Thursday as many question President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites — and whether those strikes were ultimately successful.The classified briefing, which was originally scheduled for Tuesday and was delayed, also comes as the Senate is expected to vote this week on a resolution that would require congressional approval if Trump decides to strike Iran again. Democrats, and some Republicans, have said that the White House overstepped its authority when it failed to seek the advice of Congress and they want to know more about the intelligence that Trump relied on when he authorized the attacks.'Senators deserve full transparency, and the administration has a legal obligation to inform Congress precisely about what is happening,' said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, who said Tuesday that it was 'outrageous' that the Senate and House briefings were postponed. A similar briefing for House members was pushed to Friday.CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are expected to brief the senators on Thursday. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was scheduled to be at the Tuesday briefing, but will not be attending, according to a person familiar with the schedule.The briefing could be contentious as questions have swirled around Trump's decision to strike Iran and whether the attacks were successful. A preliminary US intelligence report found this week that Iran's nuclear program had been set back only a few months, contradicting statements from Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the status of Iran's nuclear facilities, according to two people familiar with the report. The people were not authorized to address the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.On Wednesday, Gabbard and Ratcliffe sent out statements backing Trump's claims that the facilities were 'completely and fully obliterated.' Gabbard posted on social media that 'new intelligence confirms what @POTUS has stated numerous times: Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed.'She said that if the Iranians choose to rebuild the three facilities, it would 'likely take years to do.'Ratcliffe said in a statement from the CIA that Iran's nuclear program has been 'severely damaged' and cited new intelligence 'from a historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years.'Most Republicans have staunchly defended Trump and hailed the tentative ceasefire he brokered in the Israel-Iran war. House Speaker Mike Johnson even went as far as to question the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, which is intended to give Congress a say in military action.'The bottom line is the commander in chief is the president, the military reports to the president, and the person empowered to act on the nation's behalf is the president,' Johnson told reporters.But some Republicans — including some of Trump's staunchest supporters — are uncomfortable with the strikes and the potential for US involvement in an extended Middle East conflict.'I think the speaker needs to review the Constitution,' said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky 'And I think there's a lot of evidence that our Founding Fathers did not want presidents to unilaterally go to war.'Paul would not say if he is voting for the resolution by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, that would require congressional approval for specific military action in Iran. The resolution is likely to fail as 60 votes would be needed to pass it and Republicans have a 53-47 majority. But Kaine says it's important to put the Senate on the record.'You have a debate like this so that the entire American public, whose sons and daughters are in the military and whose lives will be at risk in war, get to see the debate and reach their own conclusion together with the elected officials about whether the mission is worth it or not,' Kaine said.While he did not seek approval, Trump sent congressional leaders a short letter Monday serving as his official notice of the strikes, two days after the bombs fell.The letter said that the strike was taken 'to advance vital United States national interests, and in collective self-defense of our ally, Israel, by eliminating Iran's nuclear program.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
24 minutes ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
What About The Present Day?
Since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the region has been constantly criticizing the United States for allegedly having neglected 'the day after' in Iraq. It seems the US and the West have become convinced that this neglect had been a mistake, and they now repeat it in the context of the war between Israel and Iran. The real problem is that everyone (in the region itself, along with Israel and Iran) is repeating the same mistake by ignoring 'the present day,' not just 'the day after.' For the region, it's true that no one wants war. How else, though, could we stop Iran's nuclear and missile projects, or its support for militias? As for Iran, how can it keep fighting, especially with US intervention and amid this astonishing Israeli infiltration of Tehran? It has no air defense system, and Israel has total control over Iran's airspace. Israel, regardless of the victory it may achieve, has not found an answer for Gaza and the Palestinian cause. What will it do about the ongoing war in Gaza and the Israeli hostages who remain in Hamas's hands? When the Turkish president says he is optimistic that Iran will defeat Israel. He is delusional. How does he reconcile this support with the Iranian regime's hostility toward the new Syria today? And how does he tolerate the Iranian militias in Baghdad, which refuses to sincerely engage with the new Syria? As for the Europeans, how can they argue that there are no military solutions to the Iranian crisis when they offer no real diplomatic alternatives? Their soft approach has failed everywhere the Europeans have intervened. The clearest example is France's initiative in Lebanon following the Beirut port blast, which has yielded no results to this day! And how can Iran's followers (militias and sectarian leaders in Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen) warn about 'the day after' as they ignore their responsibility for the corruption and destruction of 'the current day' in their countries and the region? The same question could be posed to certain sentimental intellectuals. The same for the United States: how can it call for caution of 'the day after' as it ignores the present day in Gaza, allowing Israel's aggression to remain unchecked, with no ceiling, limit, or plan? The same applies in Yemen with the Houthis. And how can the US worry about 'the day after' in Iran while disregarding 'the current day' when it comes to the peace process? It must facilitate peace, through an 'Oslo II.' Of course, this is not to downplay the significance of 'the day after' for any of the region's crises, especially the Israeli-Iranian war. Although it has been awaited since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and the regional development that followed, 'the current day' cannot be ignored. Accordingly, if the region has learned any lesson — or should have — it is that postponing the handling of crises, or running from them headfirst, only leads to worse outcomes. The conflicting roles played by various regional actors have catastrophic consequences — both today and tomorrow. Therefore, urgent and immediate action is needed to fix things in 'the current day,' and this might help pave the way for a better 'day after.' This applies to moderates in the region, as well as Iran, Israel, the West, and the United States. The bottom line is that dealing with 'the present day' is just as important as preparing for 'the day after.' Both must be addressed. Otherwise, 'the day after' will simply become an extension of today's devastation.
Asharq Al-Awsat
24 minutes ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Closing Hormuz is More Dangerous for Iraq and China
Iran makes threats, but it will not act. It will not mine the Strait of Hormuz or block it by bombing passing ships. This scenario would backfire and primarily harm China – the largest buyer of Gulf oil – which would lose four million barrels a day. Iran's enemies – the Americans and Israelis – would be the ones to benefit, because Beijing would adopt an angry stance toward Iran. When a cargo ship blocked the Suez Canal for just six days in 2021, the world was paralyzed – similar to what happened when the Houthis disrupted global maritime movement by targeting ships passing through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. Therefore, closing the Strait of Hormuz would hurt Iran's allies the most. In the past, the Strait of Hormuz was a card used to blackmail the world. Today, it is no longer a strategic concern for the Americans, who have become nearly self-sufficient thanks to their own oil production and that of neighboring Canada. What if Iran's goal in closing the Strait is to choke its Gulf neighbors and pressure them without entering into military confrontation? These countries have been planning for such a dark day for decades. Even if the strait were completely closed for several months, they are capable of absorbing the losses with limited damage. The biggest producer, Saudi Arabia, owns a pipeline that allows it to export through the Red Sea port of Yanbu. Its capacity is five million barrels – and it can be increased. This means it won't lose a single barrel from its market. The UAE also has the port of Fujairah, located beyond the Strait of Hormuz, through which it can export more than 1.5 million barrels a day. Then there's Qatar, the largest gas producer. Although it has no alternative sea routes, it can withstand several months of forced interruption, thanks to its massive financial reserves. Kuwait and Bahrain will be affected, but their Gulf Cooperation Council partners can support them. The biggest Gulf loser would be Iraq – Iran's ally – as it exports nearly three million barrels per day through Hormuz. If it were deprived of exports, it would not have the financial capacity to meet its obligations to its citizens or to its external commitments. We know that Iran has repeatedly trained for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz through dedicated military drills. If it does act, it would drive up oil prices and cause harm to China and Iraq, primarily. Since the 1980s, the threat of closing the strait has been Tehran's card to intimidate both the Americans and the Gulf states. But yesterday's strategies are no longer effective today. The United States has become the world's largest oil producer. China is the Gulf's biggest buyer. And the Gulf states have prepared for such a possibility by building export networks that bypass the bottleneck that is Hormuz. Tehran's other options to widen the scope of conflict remain dangerous for the region – and dangerous for itself. Each option is akin to a suicide mission that would threaten a regime long bent on domination and expansion. This may be its last chance. It must accept peaceful coexistence in the region and stay within its borders.
Asharq Al-Awsat
24 minutes ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Three Boxer Fighters and an Unprecedented Abyss
Unprecedented scenes in this terrifying region. In the scorching Middle Eastern ring, three great boxers face off over patches of blood and lakes of rubble. The people of the region woke up to the news that US bombers had struck three Iranian nuclear facilities at dawn. The Israelis woke up to destruction they had never seen since the founding of the state in 1948. The people of Iran awoke to Israeli fighter jets having seized their skies, raining down missiles on military bases, radars, and launch sites, hunting down generals and nuclear scientists. The three boxers whose decisions will determine whether the region is secure and stable, as well as the health of the arteries that connect the region to the world. The story is bigger and more dangerous than Hormuz. Three men who can land heavy blows cannot back down after having gone too far. Three boxers, each seeking either to expand his country's influence or restore its greatness. The eldest of the boxers was born on June 14, 1946. That is, he happened to be born in the month that engendered more wars in the Middle East than any other. In another coincidence, he celebrated his birthday the day after Israeli raids on Iran. A few days ago, he entered the final year of his seventies, and his eighties will catch up to him in the White House. He has not fought in Vietnam or elsewhere. He chose to go into business and learned 'the art of the deal.' Profit is his obsession, and he hates to admit defeat. He understood the magic of the screen, making regular appearances before Americans, who memorized his famous line: 'You're fired.' Success in real estate fueled his desire for the keys to the White House. He jumped between parties before joining the Republicans, eventually managing to take over the party and win the race to the White House. A man who did not belong to the establishment became the decision-maker of the "only remaining superpower. "In his first term, Donald Trump made two dangerous decisions relevant to current development. The first was withdrawing from the nuclear agreement with Iran, and the second was the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani near Baghdad International Airport. Before his second term, however, he presented himself as a candidate eager to end wars and go down in history as a peace-maker with a Nobel Prize. In addressing Iran's nuclear program, he negotiated, set deadlines, and made terrifying threats. The result was what it was. His engagement was crowned by American raids on Iran's nuclear facilities. The second boxer was born on April 19, 1939. He is now sailing through the second half of his eighties. On June 4, 1989, he became known as the 'Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution.' It is not a mandate achievement to be entrusted with Khomeini's legacy and granted unlimited powers in a country like Iran. Ali Khamenei stuck to the policy of exporting the revolution- a goal that has been enshrined into the Iranian constitution. He backed Qassem Soleimani's plans to surround Israel and the region with missiles and 'parallel armies.' Under Khamenei's leadership, Iran made gains in post-Saddam Iraq, post-Ali Abdullah Saleh Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. However, its successes were destroyed by something like a hurricane after Yahya Sinwar's 'Flood.' The Syrian front collapsed, and Bashar al-Assad is watching the flames spread from his Russian exile, while Ahmad al-Sharaa has managed to steer Syria away from the line of fire. In a scene that must have been no less painful to the Supreme Leader, Lebanon's Hezbollah was deprived of Hassan Nasrallah. It has lost the capabilities needed to wage a new war against Israel, even in defense of Iran itself. It was difficult for Khamenei, now in the latter half of his eighties, to offer a major concession to Soleimani's killer in hopes of avoiding strikes from Nasrallah's assassin. The Supreme Leader has witnessed many unprecedented scenes recently: Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, was killed in Tehran itself. Nasrallah was killed in Beirut, along with several of his top aides. Sinwar and other Hamas leaders were killed in Gaza. Ahmad al-Sharaa shook hands and received promises of aid, washing Syria's hands of the Iranian era. Then came Trump, offering Iran a future without Syria, without the militias, and without the insurance policy that it increasingly needs: a nuclear bomb, or being on the verge of obtaining one. Khamenei could not prevent the two other boxers from ganging up on his country. The third boxer was born in Tel Aviv on October 21, 1949. He is now in the latter half of his seventies. He has broken a number of records and exhausted the region. He has spent 17 years in the prime minister's office so far, outlasting all of his predecessors. He has also killed more Palestinian people and leaders than anyone else, and the same applies to senior figures in Lebanon's Hezbollah. For many years, he has been dreaming of taking his battle to its 'real theater,' of a direct clash with Iran. Indeed, he has long regarded Iran's nuclear program as an 'existential threat' and has repeatedly knocked on the White House door seeking American help to unleash a hurricane in Iran. It is clear that Benjamin Netanyahu managed to get into Trump's head. He has shaped the latter's calculations and pivots. The future of the region now hinges on the decisions of three heavyweight boxers. All of them have their historic legacies on their minds. The game is delicate and dangerous. If the Iranian boxer retaliates directly against the American boxer, the scale of the ensuing conflict could undermine the very foundations of the regime itself. It is hard to imagine that he could keep exchanging blows with the Israeli boxer without triggering American intervention. Addressing a small circle of confidants one day, Qassem Soleimani claimed that America is the thread that maintains the 'unjust balances' in the Middle East. 'This thread must be cut, and this is possible.' He also said that if Israel is an American aircraft carrier, then carriers can be sunk by piercing deep holes into them and pushing their inhabitants to lose faith in their army and government. Have the Israeli and American boxers now agreed to destroy the Iranian nuclear program and sever the thread that ties Tehran to its proxies? They are three great boxers. Unprecedented scenes. So who can pull the terrifying Middle East back from the brink?
