Latest news with #USMilitarySupport
ABC News
02-07-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
US halts some weapons shipments to Ukraine due to low stockpiles as Russian attacks intensify
Ukraine is appealing to the US after Washington halted some shipments of critical weapons to the war-embattled country. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said the decision, announced on Tuesday, was taken "to put America's interests first" and followed a Department of Defense review of America's "military support and assistance to other countries". The move by the Pentagon reportedly includes halting the supply of precision munitions and air defence interceptors that knock down Russian drones and missiles. Officials in Kyiv warned the move will weaken Ukraine's ability to defend against intensifying Russian attacks, adding it would embolden Vladimir Putin amid faltering diplomatic efforts to end the war. "The Ukrainian side emphasised that any delay or procrastination in supporting Ukraine's defence capabilities will only encourage the aggressor to continue the war and terror, rather than seek peace," Kyiv's foreign ministry said in a statement. Ukraine's defence ministry said it had not been officially notified of any halt in US shipments and was seeking clarity from its American counterparts. Meanwhile, Kyiv is forging ahead with plans for joint weapons productions with other international allies. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said officials were preparing for upcoming meetings with EU countries and other partners to talk about further cooperation. 'One of the key topics will be weapons production – our joint investments, joint projects,' Mr Zelenskyy said in his daily address on Tuesday evening, local time. Rustem Umerov, Ukraine's defence minister, also announced draft legislation on the production plan would be put to a vote in the country's parliament later this month. The proposed laws were shown to national defence companies on Tuesday, he said. Dozens of people have been killed in recent weeks during air strikes on Ukrainian cities, including the capital Kyiv, that have involved hundreds of attack drones in addition to ballistic and cruise missiles. Russian forces, which control about a fifth of Ukraine, have also made gains in a grinding summer campaign in the east. Since US President Donald Trump took office in January, he has softened Washington's position toward Russia, seeking a diplomatic solution to the war and raising doubts about future U.S. military support for Kyiv's war effort. Fedir Venislavskyi, a member of the Ukrainian parliament's national security and defence committee, called the decision to halt the shipments "very unpleasant for us". "It's painful, and against the background of the terrorist attacks which Russia commits against Ukraine, it's a very unpleasant situation," he told reporters in Kyiv. In an email, the Pentagon said it was providing Mr Trump with options to continue military aid to Ukraine in line with the goal of ending Russia's war there. "At the same time, the department is rigorously examining and adapting its approach to achieving this objective while also preserving U.S. forces' readiness for administration defence priorities," said Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary for policy. All weapons aid was briefly paused in February with a second, longer pause in March. The Trump administration resumed sending the last of the aid approved under Biden but no new policy has been announced. The Kremlin on Wednesday welcomed the news of a halt, saying the conflict would end sooner if fewer arms flowed to Ukraine. Residents in the Ukrainian capital, where missile strikes on residential neighbourhoods over the past two weeks had killed more than two dozen people, expressed alarm at the Pentagon's decision. "If we end up in a situation where there's no air defence left, I will move (out of Kyiv), because my safety is my first concern," Oksana Kurochkina, a 35-year-old lawyer told Reuters in central Kyiv. "I am already having thoughts about moving out now." On the battlefield, a halt in precision munitions would limit the capacity of Ukrainian troops to strike Russian positions farther behind the front line, said Jack Watling, a military analyst at the Royal United Services Institute. "In short, this decision will cost Ukrainian lives and territory." ABC/Reuters
Sky News
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
What happens next after US strikes is largely in Iran's control - but there are no good choices
As the sun rises above Jerusalem this morning, Israelis will be waking to the news that America has joined their war and attacked Iran. It will be met with mixed feelings. While the new day brings a comfort in US military support there will also be deep trepidation that this war has entered a dangerous and potentially uncontrollable phase. Benjamin Netanyahu released a video statement praising the US president and saying peace comes through strength; Donald Trump addressed the American nation and warned Iran he would not hesitate to order further action if it retaliates. What happens next is largely in Iran's control. What they choose to do, will determine the future of this region. The question is now not whether they will respond, but how? 1:45 Iran has faced a humiliating pounding from Israeli jets over nine days and now suffered massive attacks on their celebrated nuclear facilities by a country they call "The Great Satan"; there will be a feeling of national humiliation and anger, and the government will need to show its people it remains strong. Developing a nuclear programme has taken many decades and comes at vast cost: billions and billions of dollars and heavy international sanctions. That all now lies in tatters. How does the government explain that to its people, many of whom have suffered at the expense of these grand ambitions and are opposed to the draconian leadership they live under? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is often described as the world's longest-serving dictator. He hasn't survived by being reckless but even though the US strikes weren't aimed at regime change, Khamanei's future is now more precarious than ever. The government rhetoric and state television channels will promise fire and victory, but the reality isn't simple. There will be voices close to the Supreme Leader, especially in the Revolutionary Guard, encouraging a strong response. The moderates will likely urge caution, wary of dragging the US into a wider, more sustained conflict that Iran couldn't win. It's unclear how much more Iran can throw at Israel. Ballistic missiles have been fired at the country every day since the war began, but in decreasing numbers as Israel has systematically targeted launch sites and stockpiles. Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are severely degraded and the Assad regime in Syria is no more. This was all supposed to be the first line of defence, a deterrence against an Israel attack. That shield has collapsed. The Houthis remain defiant but their firepower is limited. 1:44 The US attacks were against Iran's nuclear sites, not senior Iranian officials. Strikes on US bases in the region would therefore be the most logical 'like-for-like' response. If they choose to widen the conflict, Iran could now target oil facilities in the Gulf or try to close off the globally important Strait of Hormuz. Either of those options would have international consequences. 2:48 Shia militia in Iraq could be hard to control if they decide to act unilaterally. Iraqi security forces have reportedly surrounded the US Embassy in Baghdad in anticipation of violence. There is a possibility Iran could do something smaller and symbolic as a way of saving face, having the final word and giving the region an off-ramp. That will be the hope in Washington. But even in that best-case scenario, it will surely have to be something more than a token response; Iran is reeling, severely weakened internally and externally. If they escalate, they risk a severe US response that could be a death blow. If they capitulate, the government faces major domestic dissent and reputational damage from which it might never recover.
Sky News
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
What happens next is largely in Iran's control - but there are no good choices
As the sun rises above Jerusalem this morning, Israelis will be waking to the news that America has joined their war and attacked Iran. It will be met with mixed feelings. For the first night in over a week there was no Iranian missile attack on Israel, but while the new day brings a comfort in US military support there will also be deep trepidation that this war has entered a dangerous and potentially uncontrollable phase. Benjamin Netanyahu released a video statement praising the US president and saying peace comes through strength; Donald Trump addressed the American nation and warned Iran he would not hesitate to order further action if it retaliates. What happens next is largely in Iran's control. What they choose to do, will determine the future of this region. The question is now whether they will respond, but how? 2:48 Iran has faced a humiliating pounding from Israeli jets over nine days and now suffered massive attacks on their celebrated nuclear facilities by a country they call "The Great Satan"; there will be a feeling of national humiliation and anger, and the government will need to show its people it remains strong. Developing a nuclear programme has taken many decades and comes at vast cost: billions and billions of dollars and heavy international sanctions. That all now lies in tatters. How does the government explain that to its people, many of whom have suffered at the expense of these grand ambitions and are opposed to the draconian leadership they live under? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is often described as the world's longest-serving dictator. He hasn't survived by being reckless but even though the US strikes weren't aimed at regime change, Khamanei's future is now more precarious than ever. The government rhetoric and state television channels will promise fire and victory, but the reality isn't simple. There will be voices close to the Supreme Leader, especially in the Revolutionary Guard, encouraging a strong response. The moderates will likely urge caution, wary of dragging the US into a wider, more sustained conflict that Iran couldn't win. It's unclear how much more Iran can throw at Israel. Ballistic missiles have been fired at the country every day since the war began, but in decreasing numbers as Israel has systematically targeted launch sites and stockpiles. Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are severely degraded and the Assad regime in Syria is no more. This was all supposed to be the first line of defence, a deterrence against an Israel attack. That shield has collapsed. The Houthis remain defiant but their firepower is limited. 1:44 The US attacks were against Iran's nuclear sites, not senior Iranian officials. Strikes on US bases in the region would therefore be the most logical 'like-for-like' response. If they choose to widen the conflict, Iran could now target oil facilities in the Gulf or try to close off the globally important Strait of Hormuz. Either of those options would have international consequences. Shia militia in Iraq could be hard to control if they decide to act unilaterally. Iraqi security forces have reportedly surrounded the US Embassy in Baghdad in anticipation of violence. There is a possibility Iran could do something smaller and symbolic as a way of saving face, having the final word and giving the region an off-ramp. That will be the hope in Washington. But even in that best-case scenario, it will surely have to be something more than a token response; Iran is reeling, severely weakened internally and externally. If they escalate, they risk a severe US response that could be a death blow. If they capitulate, the government faces major domestic dissent and reputational damage from which it might never recover.
Yahoo
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iran air strikes: Republicans split over support for Trump and another ‘foreign war'
After returning early from the G7 summit in Canada, Donald Trump met with his national security team to be briefed on the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. It became clear that Trump was considering direct US military support for the Israelis. This has the potential to cause a split among the president's supporters between the Republican hawks (traditional interventionists) on one side and the Maga isolationists on the other. During his three presidential campaigns, Trump condemned former presidents for leading America into 'ridiculous endless wars'. This isolationist tilt won him plaudits with his base of those who supported him for his populist promises to 'make America great again' (Maga). In their work on US attitudes to foreign policy and US overseas involvement, Elaine Kamarck and Jordan Muchnick of the Brookings Institution – a non-profit research organisation in Washington – looked at a range of evidence in 2023. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. They found Republicans supporting less global involvement from the US had increased from 40% to 54% from 2004 to 2017. At that time only 16% of voters supported increasing US troop presence abroad, and 40% wanted a decrease, they found. They related this change in attitudes to Trump's foreign policy position. Fast forward to his second term, and many in the Maga camp are fiercely opposed to Trump's current posturing about leading the US into another conflict in the Middle East. Over the past few days the White House has doubled down on the line that Trump keeps repeating: 'Iran can not have a nuclear weapon'. As Trump edges closer to committing the US to joining Israel in air strikes on Iran, Steve Bannon, a staunch Trump ally, argued that allowing the 'deep state' to drive the US into conflict with Iran would 'blow up' the coalition of Trump support. Meanwhile, Conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson denounced those Republicans supporting action against Iran as 'warmongers' and said they were encouraging the president to drag the US into a war. Congresswoman Majorie Taylor Greene, in an unusual break with Trump, openly criticised the president's stance on the Israel-Iran conflict, writing on X: 'Foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.' Other prominent Republican senators, including Josh Hawley and Rand Paul, have urged the president to avoid US involvement in an offensive against Iran. Another Republican congressman, Thomas Massie, has gone even further. He has joined with a coalition of Democrats in filing a House resolution under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which would seek to prevent Trump from engaging in 'unauthorized hostilities' with Iran without Congressional consent. These Republicans may believe their views are popular with their electoral base. In an Economist/YouGov poll in June 2025, 53% of Republicans stated that they did not think the US military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. But Donald Trump does seem to enjoy widespread support in the US for his position that the US cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. According to CNN data analysis, 83% of Republicans, 79% independents, and 79% of Democrats, agree with the president's position on this issue. This slightly confusing split suggests there could be US voter support for air strikes, but it's clear there would not be that same support for troops on the ground. IranInfogram Resistance from ultra-Trump die-hards, however, might put them on the wrong side of the president in the long-term. Greg Sargent, a writer at The New Republic magazine, believes that, 'people become enemies of Trump not when they substantively work against some principle he supposedly holds dear, but rather when they publicly criticize him … or become an inconvenience in any way'. So why is Trump, to the dismay of many from within the Maga faithful, seemingly abandoning the anti-war tenet of his 'America first' doctrine? Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National Interest magazine, thinks that 'now that Israel's assault on Iran appears to be successful, Trump wants in on the action'. The president has several prominent Republican hawks urging him to do exactly that, and order the US Air Force to deploy their 'bunker-buster bombs'' to destroy Iran's underground arsenals. One of these is Senator Lindsey Graham. Earlier this week on Fox News, he told Trump to be "all in … in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat. If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.' Former Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is also advocating US military action. He told CNN: 'What's happening here is some of the isolationist movement led by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are distressed we may be helping the Israelis defeat the Iranians,' adding that its 'been kind of a bad week for the isolationists' in the party. The same Economist/YouGov poll mentioned earlier showed that the stance taken by these Republicans – that Iran poses a threat to the US – is a position shared by a majority of GOP voters, with 69% viewing Iran as either an immediate and serious threat to the US, or at least somewhat of a serious threat. Some believe that Trump's evolving attitude towards American military involvement in the worsening crisis in the Middle East, however, is not a volte-face on isolationism, or an ideological pivot to the virtues of attacking Iran. Ross Douthat of the New York Times has observed that Trump 'has never been a principled noninterventionist' and that 'his deal-making style has always involved the threat of force as a crucial bargaining chip'. It is always difficult to fully determine what Trump's foreign policy doctrine actually is. It is useful, however, to reflect on some of the president's overseas actions from his first term. In April 2018, following a suspected chemical weapons attack by the forces of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in a Damascus suburb, Trump ordered US air strikes in retaliation for what he called an 'evil and despicable attack' that left 'mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air'. This led the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, to describe Trump as 'something wholly unique in the history of the presidency: an isolationist interventionist'. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Richard Hargy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Time of India
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Israel's Air Defences Critically Low Amid Iran Attacks, Claims US Report; ‘Iron Dome Overwhelmed'
Israel's air defense systems are approaching critical depletion amid continuous missile and drone barrages from Iran, according to The Washington Post. The country may only sustain its current defense pace for 10 to 12 more days without urgent resupply or deeper U.S. military involvement. The report comes after Tehran unleashed successive waves of attacks following Israel's preemptive strike last Friday, aimed at halting Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions. The Arrow system is Israel's main shield against ballistic missiles, but its costly and limited interceptor stockpile is being rapidly exhausted. U.S. forces are reportedly assisting, while President Trump has hinted at joining Israel's offensive, drawing sharp warnings from Tehran of 'irreparable' consequences.#IsraelIranConflict #MiddleEastTensions #MissileDefense #IronDome #ArrowSystem #DavidSling #IranMissiles #IsraelUnderAttack #IranVsIsrael #USMilitarySupport Read More
