America

What a difference eight years makes. During President Trump’s first term, then-Sen. Marco Rubio pushed the president to expand his human rights diplomatic agenda. Rubio recognized that promoting human rights abroad is in the national interest. He urged the president to appoint an assistant secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor — commonly known as DRL — after the position was left vacant for nearly two years. He co-sponsored the Women, Peace and Security Act (ensuring that the U.S. includes women in international conflict negotiations), spoke out against the torture of gay men in Chechnya and co-sponsored the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

So it is shocking that as secretary of State, Rubio is overseeing the near-total destruction of his department’s human rights and global justice policy shops and programs. Rubio knows this decision, one catastrophe among the many State Department cuts he’s contemplating, will undermine the enforcement of legislation he previously championed. It will also imperil decades of bipartisan foreign policy and leave the world a much more dangerous and unjust place. Congress must use its authorization and appropriation powers to protect this work.

We speak from experience. We represent the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, an organization of former State Department senior diplomats mandated to promote human rights and criminal justice globally, and to combat human trafficking. If the proposed DRL “reorganization” proceeds, critical infrastructure and expertise, which took decades and enormous political will to build, will be lost. It would also send a chilling message to the world, and to Americans: The U.S. no longer sees the quests for equality, global justice or human rights as foreign policy imperatives, or as priorities at all.

Rubio’s plan would shutter most of the State Department’s offices devoted to human rights and lay off an estimated 80% of the DRL staff, most of whom are experts in human rights and democracy. In a recent Substack post, he claimed these civil servants had become “left-wing activists [waging] vendettas against ‘anti-woke’ leaders.” Surely he knows they have instead proved themselves committed to serve the U.S. government under whatever administration is elected.

Rubio may claim that he is not eliminating DRL, but by stripping it of all policy functions, limiting it to dispensing minimal humanitarian assistance and undermining its ability to influence policy debates, his plan will be the last nail in the coffin in which the Trump administration buries America’s human rights work.

When difficult foreign policy debates are underway at the highest levels, there will be no U.S. experts at the table who specialize in human rights issues. Yet we know it is crucial that America’s foreign policy decisions balance the often precarious tension between human rights and economic and geopolitical issues.

The destruction of DRL means many important initiatives will cease altogether. As one example, the bureau previously funded a global network of civil society organizations working to reintegrate detained children of Islamic State insurgents in Iraq. Without intervention, these children and their mothers (often victims themselves) would have been indefinitely trapped in refugee camps and left susceptible to radicalization and terrorist recruitment. This lifesaving work — which made Americans safer by disrupting the cycle of anti-American extremism — was done at minimal cost to U.S. taxpayers. Now this meticulously crafted network will probably disintegrate, empowering hostile regimes overnight and imperiling the victims of Islamic extremism.

Per the plan, the few surviving DRL offices would be rebranded along ideological lines. The Office of International Labor Affairs would become the Office of Free Markets and Fair Labor, allegedly to prioritize American workers. But a different message is clear: The State Department is eviscerating efforts to prevent human trafficking, forced labor and union-busting overseas, despite the fact that such practices only make it harder for America’s workers and manufacturers to compete in a global economy.

Trump’s foreign policy perversely twists human rights causes into their regressive opposites. For instance, Rubio plans to cancel the role of special representative for racial equity and justice created by the Biden administration — a long-overdue position given the destabilizing role of racial injustice in countries around the world (including our own). Now the department touts racist narratives about “civilizational allies” and asserts that human rights derive from “western values.”

That assertion is offensive, dangerous and wrong. For starters, the flagship human rights instrument is the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Labeling human rights “western” only encourages dictators around the world to falsely claim the efforts are a Trojan horse for American imperialism. Such framing may put a target on the backs of activists in repressive regimes where advocating for the most marginalized — LGBTQ+ people for example — can be a death sentence.

The Rubio overhaul of the State Department may not seem as alarming as the administration’s scorched-earth tactics elsewhere, such as the total elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development. But his plan — and his weak and unsubstantiated justification for it — should raise alarms because foreign policy mirrors domestic policy and vice versa. Indeed, we fear that America’s retreat from human rights and democracy on the global stage is a preview for more repression to come here at home.

Congress will have to decide whether to approve Secretary Rubio’s dismantling of offices that fight for human rights and justice, a plan Sen. Rubio would have strenuously rejected less than a year ago. As the U.S. confronts emboldened adversaries, rising authoritarianism and increasing instability in the Middle East and elsewhere, senators and representatives would do well to remember that nations that promote and protect human rights and the rule of law are more likely to enjoy peace, prosperity and stability — conditions that used to define the U.S. to the rest of the world and that we need now more than ever.

Desirée Cormier Smith is the former State Department special representative for racial equity and justice. Kelly M. Fay Rodríguez is the former special representative for international labor affairs, and Beth Van Schaack the former ambassador for global criminal justice. The full list of founders of the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice is available at thealliancefordiplomacyandjustice.org.

Spouses experiencing health emergencies alone, because their loved ones are serving on the streets of Los Angeles. Troops fatigued by a mission they weren’t prepared for. Children of active-duty troops left without their parents, who were deployed on U.S. soil.

Such incidents are happening because of the Trump administration’s decision to send troops to Los Angeles, said Brandi Jones, organizing director for the Secure Families Initiative, a nonprofit that advocates for military spouses, children and veterans.

“We’ve heard from families who have a concern that what their loved ones have sacrificed and served in protection of the Constitution, and all the rights it guarantees, are really under siege right now in a way they could never have expected,” Jones said Thursday during a virtual news conference.

California National Guard troops stand outside a federal building in downtown Los Angeles during a June 14 protest.

(Zurie Pope / Los Angeles Times)

On the eve of Independence Day, veterans, legal scholars and advocates for active-duty troops warned that sending troops to quell protests in California’s largest city threatens democratic norms. Under a 147-year-old law, federal troops are barred from being used for civilian law enforcement.

Dan Maurer, a retired lieutenant colonel who is now a law professor at Ohio Northern University, described this state of affairs during the news conference as “exactly the situation we fought for independence from,” adding that President Trump is “making America militarized again.”

Though 150 National Guard troops were released from protest duty on Tuesday, according to a news release from U.S Northern Command, around 3,950 remain in Los Angeles alongside 700 Marines, who are protecting federal property from protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions.

Trump has defended the deployment of troops in Los Angeles, saying on his social media platform that the city “would be burning to the ground right now” if they were not sent. He has suggested doing the same in other U.S. cities, calling the L.A. deployment “the first, perhaps of many,” during an Oval Office news conference.

Troops in L.A. were federalized under Title 10 of the United States code, and their purview is narrow. They do not have the authority to arrest, only to detain individuals before handing them over to police, and they are only obligated to protect federal property and personnel, according to the U.S Northern Command.

Though Marines detained a U.S. Army veteran in early June, the most active involvement they and the National Guard have had in ICE’s activity is providing security during arrests, according to reports from Reuters and the CBS show “Face the Nation.”

“The administration has unnecessarily and provocatively deployed the military in a way that reflects the very fears that our founding fathers had,” Maurer said. “Using the military as a police force in all but name.”

“The closer they [the military] act to providing security around a perimeter … the closer they act to detaining individuals, the closer they act to questioning individuals that are suspected of being illegal immigrants, the closer the military is pushed to that Posse Comitatus line,” Maurer said, referring to the law that prohibits use of troops in a law enforcement capacity on American soil. “That is a very dangerous place to be.”

Other speakers argued that the use of troops in Los Angeles jeopardizes service members, placing them in a environment they were never trained for, and pitting them against American citizens.

“Our Marines are our nation’s shock troops, and it’s entirely inappropriate that they’re deployed in the streets of Los Angeles,” said Joe Plenzler, a Marine combat veteran who served as platoon commander, weapons platoon commander and company executive officer for the 2nd Batallion 7th Marines, which is now deployed in downtown L.A.

Plenzler recalled that more than half of the men he served with in 2nd Batallion came from Spanish-speaking families, and some were in this country as legal permanent residents with green cards and had yet to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship.

Members of the California National Guard are deployed at a June 14 protest in downtown L.A.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“Think about what might be going through their heads right now, as they’re being ordered to help ICE arrest and deport hardworking people who look a lot like people they would see at their own family reunions,” Plenzler said.

Plenzler also contrasted the training Marines receive with those of civilian law enforcement.

“We are not cops,” Plenzler said. “Marines aren’t trained in de-escalatory tactics required in community policing. We don’t deploy troops in civilian settings, typically because it increases the risk of excessive force, wrongful deaths and erosion of public trust.”

During the 1992 L.A. riots, Marines responded with the LAPD to a domestic dispute. One officer asked the Marines to cover him, and they, mistakenly believing he was asking them to open fire, fired 200 rounds into the home.

“Our troops are under-prepared, overstretched and overwhelmed,” said Christopher Purdy, founder of the nonprofit veteran advocacy group The Chamberlain Network and a veteran of the Army National Guard.

“Guard units doing these missions are often doing them with minimal preparation,” Purdy said, stating that many units are given a single civil unrest training block a year.

“When I deployed to Iraq, we spent weeks of intense training on cultural competency, local laws and customs, how we should operate in a blend of civil and combat operations,” Purdy said. “If we wouldn’t accept that kind of shortcut for a combat deployment, why are we accepting it now when troops are being put out on the front line in American streets?”

Each speaker reflected on the importance of holding the federal government accountable, not only for its treatment of active-duty troops, but also for how these men and women are being used on American soil.

“I reflect this Fourth of July on both the promise and the responsibility of freedom. Military family readiness is force readiness,” Jones said. “At Secure Families Initiative, we’re hearing from active-duty families: You can’t keep the force if families are stretched thin — or if troops are used against civilians.”

Added Maurer: “The rule of law means absolutely nothing if those that we democratically entrust to enforce it faithfully ignore it at will. And I think that’s where we are.”

WASHINGTON — Only 36% of Democrats say they’re “extremely” or “very” proud to be American, according to a new Gallup poll, reflecting a dramatic decline in national pride that’s also clear among young people.

The findings are a stark illustration of how many — but not all — Americans have felt less of a sense of pride in their country over the past decade. The split between Democrats and Republicans, at 56 percentage points, is at its widest since 2001. That includes all four years of Republican President Trump’s first term.

Only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults who are part of Generation Z, which is defined as those born from 1997 to 2012, expressed a high level of pride in being American in Gallup surveys conducted in the past five years, on average. That’s compared with about 6 in 10 millennials — those born between 1980 and 1996 — and at least 7 in 10 U.S. adults in older generations.

“Each generation is less patriotic than the prior generation, and Gen Z is definitely much lower than anybody else,” said Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor at Gallup. “But even among the older generations, we see that they’re less patriotic than the ones before them, and they’ve become less patriotic over time. That’s primarily driven by Democrats within those generations.”

A slow erosion in national pride

America’s decline in national pride has been a slow erosion, with a steady downtick in Gallup’s data since January 2001, when the question was first asked.

Even during the tumultuous early years of the Iraq War, the vast majority of U.S. adults, whether Republican or Democrat, said they were “extremely” or “very” proud to be American. At that point, about 9 in 10 were “extremely” or “very” proud to be American. That remained high in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but the consensus around American pride slipped in the years that followed, dropping to about 8 in 10 in 2006 and continuing a gradual decline.

Now, 58% of U.S. adults say that, in a downward shift that’s been driven almost entirely by Democrats and independents. The vast majority of Republicans continue to say they’re proud to be American.

Independents’ pride in their national identity hit a new low in the most recent survey, at 53%, largely following that pattern of gradual decline.

Democrats’ diminished pride in being American is more clearly linked to Trump’s time in office. When Trump first entered the White House, in 2017, about two-thirds of Democrats said they were proud to be American. That had fallen to 42% by 2020, just before Trump lost reelection to Democrat Joe Biden.

But while Democrats’ sense of national pride rebounded when Biden took office, it didn’t go back to its pre-Trump levels.

“It’s not just a Trump story,” Jones said. “Something else is going on, and I think it’s just younger generations coming in and not being as patriotic as older people.”

Republicans and Democrats split on patriotism

Other recent polling shows that Democrats and independents are less likely than Republicans to say that expressing patriotism is important or to feel a sense of pride in their national leaders.

Nearly 9 in 10 Republicans in a 2024 SSRS poll said they believed patriotism has a positive impact on the United States, with Democrats more divided: 45% said patriotism had a positive impact on the country, while 37% said it was negative.

But a more general sense of discontent was clear on both sides of the aisle earlier this year, when a CNN/SSRS poll found that fewer than 1 in 10 Democrats and Republicans said “proud” described the way they felt about politics in America today.

In that survey, most Americans across the political spectrum said they were “disappointed” or “frustrated” with the country’s politics.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press.

Billionaire Elon Musk said on Monday that he would form a new political party in the United States if a Republican-leaning Congress passes President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which proposes tax breaks and funding cuts for healthcare and food programmes.

Musk has voiced criticism of the bill on multiple occasions over the past month and began suggesting the idea of the new party on social media starting early June.

Here is more about Musk’s reservations about the bill, and about his new proposed party.

What has Musk said about the America Party?

Musk has been saying that if the bill is passed, Republicans are no different from Democrats, who are often accused by conservatives of being profligate with spending taxpayers’ dollars.

The version of the bill that the Senate is discussing at the moment, if passed by both chambers of Congress, would expand the national debt by $3.3 trillion between 2025 and 2034. The current US national debt stands at more than $36 trillion.

“If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day,” Musk posted on his social media platform, X, on Monday.

“Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.”

In an earlier post, Musk wrote: “It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!”

The debt ceiling, set by the US Congress, determines the upper limit to the amount of money that the US Treasury can borrow. The current debt limit is $36.1 trillion.

Why does Musk oppose the bill?

Once a key aide and major campaign donor for Trump, Musk had a public online falling out with the president in June over his criticism of the bill.

On June 3, Musk wrote on X: “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.”

Musk alleged that Trump was linked to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein in a now-deleted post on X. However, Trump and Musk seemed to have reached a detente when Trump told reporters that he wished Musk well while the latter wrote on X on June 11 that he had gone “too far” in his criticism of the US president.

However, since then, Musk has argued in a series of online posts that the bill would increase the debt ceiling, “bankrupt America”, and “destroy millions of jobs in America”.

Musk owns the electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer Tesla. The current version of the bill, with amendments made by the Senate, seeks to end the tax credit for purchases of EVs worth up to $7,500, starting on September 30. This could reduce the consumer demand for EVs in the US.

What is the America Party that Musk proposed?

On June 5, Musk posted a poll on his X account, asking his followers: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle?”

While social media polls are known to be nonrepresentative of broader public sentiment, 5.6 million people voted on the poll, and 80.4 percent responded with “yes”. Since then, Musk has repeatedly reposted the poll result, citing it as evidence that most Americans want a new party to be formed.

“Musk believes that 80 percent of Americans are unhappy with the two major parties and are not being represented,” Natasha Lindstaedt, a professor at the Department of Government, the University of Essex, told Al Jazeera.

While that number might not reflect the wider American public, it does point to a trend in the electorate; according to a Gallup poll from 2024, 43 percent of Americans identified as independent, 28 percent identified as Republican and 28 percent identified as Democrat. In other words, more Americans identify as independent than as either Democrat or Republican.

One of Musk’s followers replied to a post on X with an image with the text “America Party”. The world’s richest man responded: “‘America Party’ has a nice ring to it. The party that actually represents America!”

How real is Musk’s threat?

Experts say Musk, whose net worth is $363bn as of Monday according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, would realistically be able to fund a third party in the US. However, it is still unclear whether he would go ahead with his plan or whether his party would have a significant effect on US elections.

“Musk certainly has the financial power to back a third party that could be very disruptive to the Republican Party, but it’s not certain if Musk will take on this risk,” Lindstaedt said.

Lindstaedt recalled how earlier this month, Musk backed down from his criticism of Trump on X. “If we take him at his word, he could spend hundreds of millions on this project,” she added.

“Musk has been ramping up his criticism of the bill lately, and he may find specific legislators [particularly from the House] would be willing to defect if their constituencies are more negatively affected by Trump’s policies,” Lindstaedt said, referring to the House of Representatives. “He will also have the attention of fiscal hawks in particular.”

Lindstaedt added that among American voters, there is a “huge appetite” for a third party.

“The bill will leave the US spending hundreds of billions just in the interest, and the more Americans understand this, the more they may want to flock to something different. US public frustration with the traditional parties is at an all-time high, and Musk may be able to capitalise on this.”

However, Thomas Gift, an associate professor of political science in the UCL School of Public Policy in London, said it was unclear whether Musk is serious and suggested that the barriers to breaking the Republican-Democrat duopoly are hard to scale for anyone.

“This is Elon Musk bluffing,” he told Al Jazeera. “He knows as well as anyone that the power of party machines behind Democrats and Republicans is too much to surmount.”

Gift added that while forming a party is possible, “winning seats in Congress or the White House is another matter entirely”.

“At best, a third party will have little impact on US elections; at worst, it will play ‘spoiler’, taking votes from one of the two parties and de facto giving it to another.”

What has Trump said about Musk?

On Monday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, saying: “Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one.”

Trump added: “Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE.”

“Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!” Trump wrote, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory body aimed at boosting government efficiency and upgrading Information Technology, that Musk formed and led at the start of Trump’s second administration, before leaving on May 30.

My young family and I were in Israel when the military and the Mossad began their offensive operations against Iran on Friday, June 13, commencing what President Trump has since called the “12-Day War.” Although the Mossad’s intelligence and the Israel Defense Forces’ rapid establishment of air superiority inside Iran proved to be nothing less than extraordinary, my wife and I lived on pins and needles for those first few days of the war. We had to be ready day or night, at a moment’s notice, to drop everything, grab our 6-month-old baby and race to the house’s “safe room” (that is, bomb shelter).

Trust me: This is not a fun way to live — especially not with an infant. Meanwhile, too many of Iran’s ballistic missiles — considerably more lethal than the rockets typically fired into Israel from Gaza and Lebanon — were evading Israeli air defense. They were finding their targets. Too many homes were being destroyed, and too many people, tragically, were being killed. Though a proud Jew and Zionist, and even the author of a recent book on Israel’s fate, I decided to do what any American parent of an infant would do in such a situation: get us home.

I am a Floridian, and I heard about a program the state of Florida had launched to evacuate American citizens from the war zone. We first took a bus to the Jordanian border. We next got to Amman, where we spent the night. We then flew to Cyprus, a hub for those fleeing (and returning to) Israel, where we also spent a night. And finally, we flew from Cyprus to Tampa, where Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis surprised our group by meeting us at the airport.

The day after my family got home to Florida, the world changed in an instant: Trump ordered Operation Midnight Hammer, delivering a devastating — perhaps fatal — blow to the Iranian regime’s three most prized nuclear facilities, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. In his brief remarks at the White House following the strikes, Trump repeatedly linked the national interests and fates of the United States and Israel. Despite months of tendentious leaks, palace intrigue and the often-parroted media reports of a rift between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that bilateral relationship is clearly stronger than ever.

Looking back at both the pre-strike debate and the post-strike fallout, the more interesting question — especially given the hostility toward Trump’s move from certain high-profile talking heads within the broader MAGA fold — is perhaps this: Is Midnight Hammer an aberration from Trump’s “America First” foreign policy doctrine, or is it entirely consistent with it?

As the definitive essay on the topic, a 2019 Foreign Policy magazine article — appropriately titled “The Trump Doctrine” — from former Trump administration national security official and current State Department Director of Policy Planning Michael Anton put it, Trump’s conception of “America First” means that he has “no inborn inclination to isolationism or interventionism, and he is not simply a dove or a hawk.” By contrast, Trump’s foreign policy instinct is “Jacksonian”: It is a strand of pragmatic conservative realism that is intuitively skeptical. The mindset echoes George Washington’s famous farewell address, which warned against getting overly involved overseas, but it also remains able, willing and eager to lash out and strike if necessary to defend core American national interests.

In short, Trump has no interest in reprising the Bush-era moralistic nation-building enterprise, but he also has no interest in burying America’s head in the sand and pretending that we simply have no interest in events abroad. It was Trump himself, after all, who both withdrew from President Obama’s flawed nuclear deal with the Iranian terror regime and eliminated Islamic State founder Abu Bakr Baghdadi and Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general who commanded the Quds Force.

There are indeed some fools, ignoramuses and scoundrels on the right who keep trying to mislead their MAGA-friendly audiences by imputing to “America First” views that do not put America first and are not held by the president himself. But they are losing that battle: According to a recent CBS News poll, an astounding 94% of self-identified MAGA Republicans support Operation Midnight Hammer. It certainly seems that in voting for Trump, these Americans favored stopping the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism — a regime whose raison d’être is eliminating the “little Satan” of Israel and the “big Satan” of the United States — from acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.

After decades of debate about the Iranian nuclear program and months of pearl-clutching about the alleged imminence of World War III, the United States has devastated the illicit nuclear weapons program of a terrorist regime that chants “death to America” on a daily basis — without a single American casualty, without any extended American troop presence on the ground and with a quick post-strike ceasefire to boot. To achieve a decades-long-sought foreign policy objective in this fashion is nothing less than astonishing. Operation Midnight Hammer is one of the greatest acts of presidential statesmanship and leadership in modern American history.

It’s also “America First” in action. And looking back at the entire ordeal years from now, I strongly suspect it will also make everything my family went through in evacuating the Middle East more than worth it.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Thursday that his country had delivered a “slap to America’s face” by striking a U.S. air base in Qatar and warned against further attacks in his first public comments since a ceasefire agreement with Israel.

Khamenei’s prerecorded speech that aired on Iranian state television, his first appearance since June 19, was filled with warnings and threats directed toward the United States and Israel, the Islamic Republic’s longtime adversaries.

The 86-year-old, a skilled orator known for his forceful addresses to the country’s more than 90 million people, appeared more tired than he had just a week ago, speaking in a hoarse voice and occasionally stumbling over his words.

The supreme leader downplayed U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites Sunday using bunker-buster bombs and cruise missiles, saying that President Trump — who said the attack “completely and fully obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program — had exaggerated its impact.

“They could not achieve anything significant,” Khamenei said. Missing from his more than 10-minute video message was any mention of Iran’s nuclear program and the status of their facilities and centrifuges after extensive U.S. and Israeli strikes.

His characterization of Monday’s strike on the U.S. air base in Qatar contrasted with U.S. accounts of it as a limited attack with no casualties.

The White House responded to Khamenei’s video, accusing him of trying to “save face.”

“Any commonsense, open-minded person knows the truth about the precision strikes on Saturday night,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday. “They were wildly successful.”

U.N. nuclear watchdog confirms damage to Iran sites

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency Director Rafael Grossi, reiterated Thursday that the damage done by Israeli and U.S. strikes at Iranian nuclear facilities “is very, very, very considerable” and that he can only assume the centrifuges are not operational.

“I think annihilated is too much, but it suffered enormous damage,” Grossi told French broadcaster RFI. The IAEA has not been allowed to visit any of the Iranian facilities to do an independent assessment of the damage.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, also conceded Wednesday that “our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that’s for sure.”

Khamenei has not been seen in public since taking shelter in a secret location after the outbreak of the war on June 13, when Israel attacked Iranian nuclear facilities and targeted top military commanders and scientists.

After Sunday’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Trump was able to help negotiate a ceasefire that came into effect Tuesday.

Iranian leader warns U.S. against further attacks

Khamenei claimed the U.S. had only intervened in the war because “it felt that if it did not intervene, the Zionist regime would be utterly destroyed.”

“It entered the war to save them, yet it gained nothing,” he said.

He said his country’s attack Monday on the U.S. base in Qatar was significant, since it shows Iran “has access to important U.S. centers in the region and can act against them whenever it deems necessary.”

“The Islamic Republic was victorious and, in retaliation, delivered a hand slap to America’s face,” he said, adding, “This action can be repeated in the future.”

“Should any aggression occur, the enemy will definitely pay a heavy price,” he said.

Trump has dismissed the retaliatory attack as a “very weak response,” saying that the U.S. had been warned by Iran in advance and emphasizing that there had been no casualties.

With the ceasefire, life slowly returns to normal in Iran

On Thursday, Iran partially reopened its airspace, which had been closed since the war began, and shops in Tehran’s capital began to reopen, with traffic returning to the streets.

Majid Akhavan, spokesperson for the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, said Iran had reopened its airspace for the eastern half of the country to domestic and international flights, including those transiting Iranian airspace.

Earlier this week, Tehran said 606 people had been killed in the conflict in Iran, with 5,332 people wounded. The Washington-based Human Rights Activists group released figures Wednesday suggesting Israeli strikes on Iran had killed at least 1,054 and wounded 4,476.

The group, which has provided detailed casualty figures from multiple rounds of unrest in Iran, said 417 of those killed were civilians and 318 were security forces.

At least 28 people were killed in Israel and more than 1,000 wounded, according to officials there. During the 12-day war, Iran fired more than 550 missiles at Israel with a 90% interception rate, according to new statistics released by Israeli authorities Thursday. Israel, meantime, hit more than 720 Iranian military infrastructure targets and eight nuclear-related sites, Israel said.

Trump has also asserted that American and Iranian officials will talk next week, giving rise to cautious hope for longer-term peace.

Iran has not acknowledged that any such talks would take place, though U.S. Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff has said there has been direct and indirect communication between the countries. A sixth round of U.S.-Iran negotiations was scheduled for earlier this month in Oman but was canceled after Israel attacked Iran.

Iran has insisted that it will not give up its nuclear program. In a vote underscoring the tough path ahead, its parliament agreed Wednesday to fast-track a proposal that would effectively stop the country’s cooperation with the IAEA, which has monitored the program for years.

Amiri and Rising write for the Associated Press. The AP’s John Leicester in Paris and Natalie Melzer in Nahariya, Israel, and Aamer Madhani in Washington contributed to this report.