approve

Nov. 7 (UPI) — Republicans narrowly defeated a bipartisan bill in the Senate requiring congressional approval for military action against Venezuela as the Trump administration continues a military buildup in the region and attacks on alleged drug boats in nearby waters.

The GOP lawmakers rejected Senate Joint Resolution 90 in a 51-49 vote on Thursday evening, with Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska casting ballots in favor of the measure with their Democratic colleagues.

The resolution was introduced by Paul, and Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia in response to reporting that President Donald Trump was considering military ground strikes against Venezuela.

Venezuela has long been a target of Trump, who, during his first administration, launched a failed multiyear pressure campaign to oust its authoritarian leader, President Nicolas Maduro.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has used his executive powers to target drug cartels, including the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Trump has claimed, without providing evidence, that TdA has “invaded” the United States at Maduro’s direction, despite his own National Intelligence Council concluding in May that the regime “probably does not have a policy of cooperating” with TdA.

The vote was held as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a 17th known military strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in Caribbean international waters. Since Sept. 2, the United States has killed around 70 people in the attacks.

The attacks have drawn domestic and international criticism and allegations of war crimes, murder and extrajudicial killings. Some Democrats called on the Trump administration to answer questions over the legality of the strikes without gaining proper congressional approval.

Following the Thursday vote, Kaine said the Trump administration told some members of Congress that it lacked legal authority to launch any attacks into Venezuela. Some worry that an attack could devolve into a full-scale war.

“Trump’s illegal strikes on boats in the Caribbean and threats of land strikes in Venezuela recklessly and unnecessarily put the U.S. at risk of war,” Kaine said in a statement.

In a separate statement, he criticized his Republican colleagues, stating: “If the U.S. is going to put our nation’s sons and daughters into harm’s way, then we should have a robust debate in Congress in front of the American people.”

Sen. Todd Young, a Republican of Indiana, voted against the bill on Thursday, and explained in a statement that he has been informed of the legal rationale behind the strikes and does not believe the resolution is appropriate right now, but that could change.

“My vote is not an endorsement of the administration’s current course in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. As a matter of policy, I am troubled by many aspects and assumptions of this operation and believe it is at odds with the majority of Americans who want the U.S. military less entangled in international conflicts,” he said.

Shareholders approved the pay package with as much as 75 percent support on Thursday.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has scored a resounding victory as shareholders have approved a pay package of as much as $878bn over the next decade, endorsing his vision of morphing the electric vehicle (EV) maker into an AI and robotics juggernaut.

Shares of Tesla rose more than 3 percent in after-hours trading after the shareholders voted on Thursday. The proposal was approved with more than 75 percent support.

Musk took to the stage in Austin, Texas, along with dancing robots. “What we are about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla, but a whole new book,” he said. “This really is going to be quite the story.”

He added: “Other shareholder meetings are like snooze fests, but ours are bangers. I mean, look at this. This is sick.”

Shareholders also re-elected three directors on Tesla’s board and voted in favour of a replacement pay plan for Musk’s services because a legal challenge has held up a previous package.

The vote, analysts have said, is a positive for Tesla’s stock, whose valuation hangs on Musk’s vision of making vehicles drive themselves, expanding robotaxis across the United States and selling humanoid robots, even though his far-right political rhetoric has hurt the Tesla brand this year.

A win for Musk was widely expected as the billionaire was allowed to exercise the full voting rights of his roughly 15 percent stake after the carmaker moved to Texas from Delaware, where a legal challenge has held up a previous pay rise.

The approval comes even after opposition from some major investors, including Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.

Tesla’s board had said Musk could quit if the pay package was not approved.

The vote will also allay investor concerns that Musk’s focus has been diluted with his work in politics as well as in running his other companies, including rocket maker SpaceX and artificial intelligence startup xAI.

The board and many investors who lent their endorsement have said the nearly $1 trillion package benefits shareholders in the longer run, as Musk must ensure Tesla achieves a series of milestones to get paid.

Goals for Musk over the next decade include the company delivering 20 million vehicles, having one million robotaxis in operation, selling one million robots and earning as much as $400bn in core profit. But in order for him to get paid, Tesla’s stock value has to rise in tandem, first to $2 trillion from the current $1.5 trillion, and all the way to $8.5 trillion.

Under the new plan, Musk could earn as much as $878bn in Tesla stock over 10 years. Musk would be given as much as $1 trillion in stock but would have to make some payments back to Tesla.

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday promised to quickly sign off on a new, Republican-leaning congressional voting map gerrymandered to help the GOP maintain its slim majority in Congress.

“One Big Beautiful Map has passed the Senate and is on its way to my desk, where it will be swiftly signed into law,” Abbott said in a statement. The bill’s name is a nod to President Trump’s signature tax and spending bill, as Trump urged Abbott to redraw the congressional districts to favor Republicans.

Texas lawmakers approved the final plans just hours before, inflaming an already tense battle unfolding among states as governors from both parties pledge to redraw maps with the goal of giving their political candidates a leg up in the 2026 midterm elections.

In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has approved a special election in November for voters to decide whether to adopt a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more House seats next year.

Meanwhile, Trump has pushed other Republican-controlled states, including Indiana and Missouri, to also revise their maps to add more winnable GOP seats. Ohio Republicans were also already scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan.

In Texas, the map includes five new districts that would favor Republicans.

Democrats vow to challenge it in court

The effort by Trump and Texas’ Republican-majority Legislature prompted state Democrats to hold a two-week walkout and kicked off a wave of redistricting efforts across the country.

Democrats had prepared for a final show of resistance, with plans to push the Senate vote into the early morning hours in a last-ditch attempt to delay passage. Yet Republicans blocked those efforts by citing a rule violation.

“What we have seen in this redistricting process has been maneuvers and mechanisms to shut down people’s voices,” said state Sen. Carol Alvarado, leader of the Senate Democratic caucus, on social media after the new map was finalized by the GOP-controlled Senate.

Democrats had already delayed the bill’s passage during hours of debate, pressing Republican Sen. Phil King, the measure’s sponsor, on the proposal’s legality, with many alleging that the redrawn districts violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting voters’ influence based on race.

King rejected that accusation, saying, “I had two goals in mind: That all maps would be legal and would be better for Republican congressional candidates in Texas.

“There is extreme risk the Republican majority will be lost” in the U.S. House of Representatives if the map does not pass, King said.

Battle for the House waged via redistricting

On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing districts puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. The incumbent president’s party usually loses seats in the midterms.

The Texas redraw is already reshaping the 2026 race, with Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the dean of the state’s congressional delegation, announcing Thursday that he will not seek reelection to his Austin-based seat if the new map takes effect. Under the proposed map, Doggett’s district would overlap with that of another Democratic incumbent, Rep. Greg Casar.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade, immediately after a census. Though some states have their own limitations, there is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that the Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering to increase a party’s clout, only gerrymandering that’s explicitly done by race.

Other states

More Democratic-run states have commission systems like California’s or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, cannot draw new maps until 2028, and even then only with voter approval.

Republicans and some Democrats championed a 2008 ballot measure that established California’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, along with a 2010 one that extended its role to drawing congressional maps.

Both sides have shown concern over what the redistricting war could lead to.

California Assemblyman James Gallagher, the Republican minority leader, said Trump was “wrong” to push for new Republican seats elsewhere. But he warned that Newsom’s approach, which the governor has said is an effort to “fight fire with fire,” is dangerous.

“You move forward fighting fire with fire, and what happens?” Gallagher asked. “You burn it all down.”

Vertuno, Cappelletti and Golden write for the Associated Press and reported from Austin, Washington and Seattle, respectively. AP writer Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.

Vote was held after Democrats returned from two-week walkout to block passage.

Texas legislators have passed a new state congressional map drawn at the behest of United States President Donald Trump to flip five Democratic-held US House seats in next year’s midterm elections, after dozens of Democratic lawmakers ended a two-week walkout that had temporarily blocked passage.

On Wednesday evening, legislators in the Republican-controlled Texas House of Representatives gave initial approval to the map, though Democratic lawmakers noted during the session that the map was not made available during public hearings.

Texas Democrats on Wednesday raised multiple objections to and questions about the measure.

Representative John Bucy, a Democrat, said from the House floor before passage of the bill that the new maps were clearly intended to dilute the voting power of Black, Latino and Asian voters, and that his Republican colleagues’ bending to the will of Trump was deeply worrying.

“This is not democracy, this is authoritarianism in real time,” Bucy said. “This is Donald Trump’s map. It clearly and deliberately manufactures five more Republican seats in Congress because Trump himself knows the voters are rejecting his agenda.”

Republicans argued the map was created to improve political performance and would increase majority-Hispanic districts.

The approval by the Texas House of Representatives came at the urging of President Trump, who pushed for the extraordinary mid-decade revision of congressional maps to give his party a better chance at holding on to the US House of Representatives in next year’s election. The maps need to be approved by the state Senate and signed by Governor Greg Abbott before they become official.

Texas state legislative Democrats delayed the vote by two weeks by fleeing the state earlier this month in protest, and were assigned round-the-clock police monitoring upon their return to ensure they attended Wednesday’s session.

The walkout ended when Democrats voluntarily returned on Monday, saying they had accomplished their goals of blocking a vote during a first special legislative session and persuading Democrats in other states to take retaliatory steps.

The approval of the Texas maps is likely to prompt California’s Democratic-controlled state Legislature to approve its own new House map aimed at creating five Democratic-leaning districts. Unlike in Texas, the California map would require approval by voters in November before it becomes official.

The California Legislature is scheduled to vote Thursday morning on three measures – to establish new congressional districts, authorise the redrawn map to replace the existing one and declare a November special election to seek voters’ approval.

Democrats have also pledged to sue to challenge the new Texas map and complained that Republicans made the political power move before passing legislation responding to deadly floods that swept the state last month.

Other Republican states – including Ohio, Florida, Indiana and Missouri – are moving forward with or considering their own redistricting efforts, as are Democratic states such as Maryland and Illinois.

Nationally, Republicans captured the 435-seat US House in 2024 by only three seats. The party of the president historically loses House seats in the first midterm election, and Trump’s approval ratings have sagged since he took office in January.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that he will move forward with the construction of 3,401 new settlement units in Area E1, located between Jerusalem and the Ma’ale Adumim settlement.

The decision comes despite international pressure against construction in the area beyond the Green Line and after a 20-year pause.

Smotrich’s plan aims to link Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem, cutting off Palestinian movement between Ramallah and Bethlehem. The area is considered strategic and could undermine any future political settlement.

Smotrich said: “Construction plans in the E1 area cancel the idea of a Palestinian state and continue the many steps we are taking on the ground as part of the de facto sovereignty plan we started with the formation of the government.”

He added: “After decades of international pressure and freezes, we are breaking agreements and linking Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem.”

READ: US House Speaker claims West Bank “rightful property of Jewish People”

ADVERTISEMENT

Banco Sabadell shareholders unanimously backed the sale of its UK subsidiary TSB to Banco Santander at an extraordinary meeting on Wednesday.

The deal, valued at a minimum of £2.65 billion (around €3.05 billion), represents a notable gain against the acquisition price. In 2015, Sabadell bought TSB for £1.7 billion, equivalent today to around €1.95 billion.

The approval of this divestment comes at a particularly sensitive time, as the Catalan bank is the target of a hostile takeover bid by BBVA. For this reason, the board of directors needed to obtain the explicit approval of the shareholders before closing any strategic operation of this calibre.

TSB, focused on the UK mortgage market, has been one of the key assets in Sabadell’s defence against the proposed hostile takeover.

The sale of TSB is part of Sabadell’s strategy to strengthen its independent position in the face of the takeover bid launched by BBVA. By divesting TSB, the Catalan bank seeks to reduce its international exposure, simplify its structure and generate liquidity to remunerate its shareholders.

The plan includes an extraordinary dividend of €2.5 billion in 2026, which must be approved this afternoon, plus additional ordinary payments.

This increases the attractiveness of maintaining the bank as an autonomous entity and complicates BBVA’s takeover attempt.

The proposed acquisition has sparked political controversy in Spain and in Brussels. Last month, the European Commission sent Spain a legal warning after the government sought to impose conditions on the merger.

July 23 (UPI) — The U.S. House Oversight Committee on Wednesday subpoenaed Ghislaine Maxwell as a subcommittee sought subpoenas for President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and the Justice Department.

A House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee also approved subpoenas to obtain Department of Justice records related to the Epstein files and deposing former President Bill Clinton and other Democrats.

Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., introduced the motion to subpoena the DOJ’s “full, complete [and] unredacted” Epstein files, which passed with an 8-2 vote.

Republican Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Brian Jack of Georgia and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania joined Democrats in voting in favor of the subpoena motion.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said he will sign the DOJ subpoena for the Epstein files, ABC News reported.

The subcommittee also seeks former President Clinton’s and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s depositions.

Others targeted for subpoenas include James Comey, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Robert Mueller, Alberto Gonzales and Jeff Sessions.

House speaker questions Maxwell’s credibility

The Oversight Committee wants to depose Maxwell on Aug. 11 at the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee, Fla.

Maxwell, 63, was an associate of former financier and convicted sex offender Epstein, who killed himself while jailed in New York City and awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges that included minors in 2019.

She also is the daughter of former British media mogul Robert Maxwell and is serving a 20-year prison sentence in Florida after a jury found her guilty of sex trafficking in 2021.

“The facts and circumstances surrounding both your and Mr. Epstein’s cases have received immense public interest and scrutiny,” Comer said in the subpoena.

Comer said the Justice Department also is undertaking “efforts to uncover and publicly disclose additional information related to your and Mr. Epstein’s cases.”

“It is imperative that Congress conduct oversight of the federal government’s enforcement of sex trafficking laws generally,” he added, “and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of you and Mr. Epstein.”

Comer submitted the subpoena a day after a House Oversight subcommittee approved a motion that directed him to seek Maxwell’s testimony before the Oversight Committee.

The Justice Department on Tuesday also announced it will interview Maxwell soon to provide greater transparency in the case against Epstein.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Wednesday questioned the credibility of Maxwell’s testimony.

“Could she be counted on to tell the truth?” Johnson asked reporters. “Is she a credible witness?”

He called Maxwell “a person who’s been sentenced to many, many years in prison for terrible, unspeakable conspiratorial acts and acts against innocent young people.”

Federal judge denies Epstein grand jury files access

A federal judge on Wednesday denied one of three DOJ requests to release grand jury records from Epstein’s case there.

U.S. District of Southern Florida Judge Robin Rosenberg refused to unseal the grand jury testimony and records from cases against Epstein in 2005 and 2007.

Rosenberg said the Justice Department did not sufficiently outline arguments to unseal the court records.

She also denied a request to transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court for Southern New York.

Two federal judges there similarly are considering DOJ motions to unseal grand jury files from the former Epstein cases.

Bondi said Trump’s name is in the files

While those rulings are pending, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump his name appears in the Epstein files, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Bondi did not state the context in which Trump is mentioned, and White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said Trump did not engage in any wrongdoing.

Instead, Trump expelled Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club because the president thought Epstein was a “creep,” Cheung added.

Bondi earlier suggested she would release files related to the Epstein case, but recently said they don’t contain anything noteworthy.

Her announcement regarding the files triggered controversy, including among Republican congressional members.

Johnson canceled Thursday’s House session and said the chamber will recess until Sept. 2.

July 3 (UPI) — The House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2026 federal budget bill, commonly referred to as “one big, beautiful bill,” with a 218 to 214 vote on Thursday afternoon.

The measure now goes to President Donald Trump for signing, which he might do on Independence Day.

Two Republicans, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voted against the measure. So did all House Democrats, CBS News reported.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries launched a marathon eight-hour speech on the House floor Thursday, seeking to delay a final vote, but his effort failed.

Jeffries, D-N.Y., began speaking at 4:52 a.m. EDT, describing frustration with the leaders of the House GOP, who only allowed one hour of debate over the more than 900-page bill.

Jeffries spent his speaking time telling the stories of people who will be harmed by the bill, focusing on those in Republican districts and calling out the House members who represent them.

Jeffries’ eight-hour speech set a record for the longest delivered on the House floor, USA Today reported.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., took the floor after Jeffries finished speaking to conduct the final vote after spending most of the day Wednesday negotiating with GOP House members.

Trump also met with skeptical GOP House members at the White House to work out a way to get the measure passed before the Fourth of July holiday.

Johnson said he and the president discussed having the measure, House Resolution 1, signed into law during Friday’s national holiday.

“What more appropriate time to pass the big, beautiful bill for America than on Independence Day?” He said, as reported by USA Today.

The funding bill is projected to increase the nation’s current $36 trillion deficit by another $3.4 trillion over the next decade.

It also makes income tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term in office permanent instead of allowing them to expire this year.

The bill also gives tax breaks for income earned via tips and overtime pay, and it reduces tax breaks for clean energy projects that were created by the Biden administration.

The US has been pressuring its allies to adopt new targets for defence spending in response to the Russian threat.

A who’s who of world leaders has been converging on the Netherlands for the annual North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit, where members are expected to sign off on major boosts to defence spending in response to pressure from the United States.

The two-day NATO meeting kicks off in The Hague on Tuesday against a backdrop of increasing global instability, with ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza and the Middle East. High on the agenda is an agreement to significantly increase defence expenditure across the 32 member states. This follows pointed criticism from the administration of US President Donald Trump, who says the US carries too much of the military burden.

Trump has demanded that NATO allies increase their defence spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP), up from the current target of 2 percent. He has questioned whether the alliance should defend countries that fail to meet the spending targets, and has even threatened to leave the bloc.

Speaking to reporters in The Hague ahead of the summit on Tuesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that NATO members were set to approve “historic new spending targets” at the summit.

“The security architecture that we relied on for decades can no longer be taken for granted,” she said, describing it as a “once-in-a-generation tectonic shift”.

“In recent months, Europe has taken action, action that seemed unthinkable just a year ago,” she said. “The Europe of defence has finally awakened.”

Speaking ahead of the summit, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stressed that there was “total commitment” from the US to the alliance, but he noted that it came with the expectation of a boost in defence spending.

US pressure

Earlier this month, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered an ultimatum to NATO defence ministers at a meeting in Brussels, saying that the commitment to 5 percent spending “​​has to happen by the summit at The Hague”.

In response to the pressure, Rutte will ask member states at the summit to approve new targets of 5 percent of GDP for their defence budgets by 2032, with 3.5 percent to be spent on core defence spending and the remainder allocated to “soft spending” on infrastructure and cybersecurity.

In 2023, in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine, NATO leaders agreed to raise defence spending targets from 1.5 percent to 2 percent of GDP. However, only 22 of the alliance’s 32 members met the revised targets.

While some countries like Spain have pushed back against the latest proposed hike as unrealistic, other members have already announced plans to significantly ramp up military spending in response to a changed security environment.

Delivering a major foreign policy address in Berlin on Tuesday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Germany would ramp up its spending to become “Europe’s strongest conventional army” — not as a “favour” to Washington, but in response to the threat from Russia.

“We must fear that Russia wants to continue its war beyond Ukraine,” he said.

“We must together be so strong that no one dares to attack us.”

Kremlin: NATO ‘created for confrontation’

The summit will be attended by the leaders of all 32 members of the transatlantic alliance, along with the leaders of allied countries, including Japan, New Zealand and Ukraine.

While Kyiv is not a member of the alliance, its desire to join NATO was cited by the Kremlin as one of the reasons it attacked Ukraine in 2022.

On Tuesday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Moscow had no plans to attack NATO, but that it was “a wasted effort” to assure the alliance of this because it was determined to demonise Russia as a “fiend of hell”.

“It is an alliance created for confrontation … It is not an instrument of peace and stability,” Peskov said, the Reuters news agency reported.

As the conflict between Iran and Israel escalates, United States President Donald Trump’s administration is offering mixed signals about whether it still backs a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Publicly, it has backed a negotiated agreement, and US and Iranian negotiators had planned to meet again this week. As recently as Thursday, Trump insisted in a Truth Social post: “We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution.”

But 14 hours later as Israel began its attacks on Iran, Trump posted that he had given Iran a 60-day deadline to reach an agreement – and that the deadline had passed. By Sunday, Trump was insisting that “Israel and Iran should make a deal” and they would with his help.

On Monday as Trump prepared to leave the Group of Seven summit in Canada early, his warnings grew more ominous: He posted that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” The US president later denied speculation that he had returned to Washington, DC, early to negotiate a ceasefire, noting that it was for something “much bigger than that”.

Trump’s ambiguous statements have fuelled debate among analysts about the true extent of US involvement and intentions in the Israel-Iran conflict.

Debating Trump’s wink and a nod

Trump has denied any US involvement in the strikes. “The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight,” he wrote on Sunday.

Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the US-based Arms Control Association, said Trump’s messaging had been clear. “I think that President Trump has been very clear in his opposition to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was playing out. And reporting suggests that he pushed back against [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” she said.

What’s more likely, Davenport said, is that “Israel was worried that diplomacy would succeed, that it would mean a deal” and “that it did not view [this as] matching its interests and objectives regarding Iran”.

Richard Nephew, a professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, agreed, saying it was Trump’s consistent march towards a deal that troubled Israel.

“I think it is that consistency that’s actually been the thing that’s the problem,” said Nephew, who served as director for Iran at the US National Security Council from 2011 to 2013 under then-President Barack Obama.

But Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at St Andrews University in Scotland, disagreed.

“The US was aware. … Even if the specific timing did surprise them, they must have been aware, so a wink is about right,” he told Al Jazeera.

“At the same time, the US view is that Israel must take the lead and should really do this on their own,” he said.

Could Trump get sucked into the conflict?

Israel is believed to have destroyed the above-ground section of Iran’s uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. The facility has enriched uranium to 60 percent purity – far above the 3.67 percent needed for nuclear power but below the 90 percent purity needed for an atomic bomb. Power loss at Natanz as a result of the Israeli strike may have also damaged the underground enrichment section at Natanz, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

But in the IAEA’s assessment, Israel did not damage Iran’s other uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain and also enriches uranium to 60 percent purity.

“It’s likely that Israel would need US support if it actually wanted to penetrate some of these underground facilities,” Davenport said, pointing to the largest US conventional bomb, the 13,600kg (30,000lb) Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

“[With] repeated strikes with that munition, you could likely damage or destroy some of these facilities,” Davenport said, noting that Washington “has not transferred that bomb to Israel”.

Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a US-based think tank, also told Al Jazeera that Israel would need US weapons to complete its stated mission of destroying Iran’s nuclear programme.

Nephew, for one, did not discount the chances of that happening.

“We know that [Trump] likes to be on the side of winners. To the extent that he perceives the Israelis as winners right now, that is the reason why he is maintaining his position and why I think we have a wink [to Israel],” he said.

On Friday, the US flew a large number of midair-refuelling planes to the Middle East and ordered the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz to sail there. On Tuesday, it announced it was sending more warplanes to the region.

Ansari agreed that the initial success of Israel’s attacks could mean that “Trump is tempted to join in just to get some of the glory,” but he thinks this could force Iran to stand down.

“It may well be that the US does join in on an attack on Fordow although I think even the genuine threat of an American attack will bring the Iranians to the table,” Ansari said. “They can concede – with honour – to the United States; they can’t to Israel, though they may have no choice.”

Wary of American involvement, US Senator Tim Kaine introduced a war powers resolution on Monday that would require the US Congress to authorise any military action against Iran.

“It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States,” Kaine said.

Diplomacy vs force

Obama did not believe a military solution was attractive or feasible for Iran’s nuclear programme, and he opted for a diplomatic process that resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. That agreement called for the IAEA to monitor all of Iran’s nuclear activities to ensure that uranium enrichment only reached the levels required for energy production.

According to Nephew and Davenport, Trump indirectly fanned the flames of the military option when he pulled the US out of the JCPOA as president in 2018 at Israel’s behest.

Two years later, Iran said it would enrich uranium to 4.5 percent purity, and in 2021, it refined it to 20 percent purity. In 2023, the IAEA said it had found uranium particles at Fordow enriched to 83.7 percent purity.

Trump offered no alternative to the JCPOA during his first presidential term, nor did President Joe Biden after him.

“Setting [the JCPOA] on fire was a direct contribution to where we are today,” Nephew said. Seeking a military path instead of a diplomatic one to curtail a nuclear programme “contributes to a proliferation path”, he said, “because countries say, ‘The only way I can protect myself is if I go down this path.’”

Davenport, an expert on the nuclear and missile programmes of Iran and North Korea, said even the regime change in Tehran that Netanyahu has called for wouldn’t solve the problem.

“Regime change is not an assured nonproliferation strategy,” she said. “We don’t know what would come next in Iran if this regime were to fall. If it were the military seizing control, nuclear weapons might be more likely. But even if it were a more open democratic government, democracies choose to build nuclear weapons too.”

Legislation likely to eventually pass as polls say 90 percent of French in favour of laws that give people with terminal diseases the right to die.

France’s lower house of parliament has approved a right-to-die bill in the first reading, taking an initial step in the lengthy process to pass legislation.

A total of 305 lawmakers in the National Assembly approved the legislation on Tuesday while 199 deputies voted against the bill to grant patients medical assistance to end their lives in defined circumstances.

The text has the backing of President Emmanuel Macron but is opposed by some conservative groups.

In a statement on X, Macron praised the approval of the bill as “an important step” on “the path of fraternity”.

“The National Assembly’s vote on legislation concerning the development of palliative care and assisted dying is an important step,” Macron posted. “With respect for sensitivities, doubts and hopes, the path of fraternity that I hoped for is gradually opening up.”

The legislation will be sent to the French Senate for further debate. Months could be required to schedule a definitive vote on the measure, given France’s long and complex parliamentary process. The National Assembly has the final say over the Senate.

The legislation is expected to eventually pass as polls indicated that more than 90 percent of French people are in favour of laws that give people with terminal diseases or going through interminable suffering the right to die.

The proposed measure defines assisted dying as allowing people to use lethal medication under certain conditions. They may take it themselves, or those whose physical conditions don’t allow them to do so alone would be able to get help from a doctor or nurse.

Strict conditions

To benefit, patients would need to be over 18, be French citizens or live in France.

A team of medical professionals would need to confirm that the patient has a grave and incurable illness “at an advanced or terminal stage”, is suffering from intolerable and untreatable pain, and is seeking lethal medication of their own free will.

Patients with severe psychiatric conditions and neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease will not be eligible.

A person would initiate the request for lethal medication and confirm the request after a period of reflection.

If approved, a doctor would deliver a prescription for the lethal medication, which could be taken at home, a nursing home or a healthcare facility.

A 2023 report indicated that most French citizens back legalising end-of-life options, and opinion polls showed growing support over the past 20 years.

Initial discussions in parliament last year were abruptly interrupted by Macron’s decision to dissolve the National Assembly, plunging France into a months-long political crisis.