attacking

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.

SINGER Chris Brown has been allowed to return to the US from Britain — but only under stringent bail conditions. 

The Forever hitmaker, 36, is accused of attacking music producer Abraham Diaw at the Tape club in London’s Mayfair. 

Yesterday, he won an appeal to vary conditions and is now allowed to leave the UK before his trial next October. 

Judge Tony Baumgartner told the Grammy Award-winner: “You will have to come back to the UK when you are required to do so.” 

Brown, along with Dallas rapper Omololu Akinlolu, 38, denies actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm in February 2023.

He also faces one count of having an offensive weapon — namely a tequila bottle. 

MCQUEEN BEE

Jorgie Porter: I’ve kissed whole village & was lads’ mag babe…I want sex scenes

HOME SWEET HOME

Martin Freeman wins YEAR long battle over £5m mansion

Brown appeared at Southwark Crown Court today wearing a baggy white shirt, black tie and glasses to for an application to vary bail conditions. 

Akinlolu was wearing a cream cricket jumper and brown chinos. 

The pair confirmed their names simultaneously with a ‘yes ma’am’ in front of a public gallery filled with fans of the R and B star. 

The pair are required back at Southwark crown court on January 28 for a pre-trial hearing. 

Brown and Akinlolu will then face a week-long trial on 26 October next year. 

INDIANAPOLIS — Former USC quarterback Mark Sanchez was pepper-sprayed and stabbed multiple times during a late-night altercation with a 69-year-old truck driver in a downtown Indianapolis alley, which resulted in criminal charges against the Fox Sports analyst, according to court records filed Sunday.

Based on hotel video footage of the altercation early Saturday and the driver’s statement to police, an Indianapolis police affidavit alleges that Sanchez, smelling of alcohol, accosted the driver of a box truck that backed into a hotel’s loading docks, leading to a confrontation outside the vehicle that prompted the driver to defensively pull out a knife.

Sanchez was hospitalized with stab wounds to his upper right torso, the affidavit signed by a police detective said. Sanchez remained hospitalized early Sunday, according to police. The truck driver, identified as P.T., had a cut to his left cheek, it said.

Sanchez was in stable condition, Fox Sports said Saturday. There was no immediate update Sunday.

His initial court hearing was set for Tuesday in a Marion County courtroom.

Sanchez stabbed multiple times

As the altercation escalated, the driver feared “‘this guy is trying to kill me’” and pulled his knife as Sanchez came at him, the affidavit said. Sanchez was initially stabbed two or three times, then stabbed again when he went at the driver again, it said.

“The next thing P.T. knew was Mr. Sanchez looked at him with a look of shock, he slowly turned around and Mr. Sanchez took off northbound in the alley,” the document said.

Sanchez was in Indianapolis to call Sunday’s Raiders-Colts game. Instead, he was charged with battery resulting in injury, unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle and public intoxication — all misdemeanors. Police got a warrant to obtain Sanchez’s phone and clothes from the hospital, the document said.

There were no immediate court records indicating whether Sanchez had legal representation yet.

Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears said Sunday that his office would “follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”

“What began as a disagreement between a 38-year-old former professional athlete and a 69-year-old man should not have escalated into violence or left anyone seriously injured,” Mears said in a statement.

Fox Sports announcers acknowledge Sanchez’s absence

Sanchez told police at the hospital that all he could remember was grabbing for a window, the court document said. Sanchez said he didn’t know who else was involved or where the altercation happened.

“Friday night in Indianapolis, one of our team members, Mark Sanchez, was involved in an incident that, to be honest, we are still trying to wrap our heads around,” Curt Menefee said Sunday on Fox’s primary NFL pregame show. “At this time, our thoughts and prayers are with Mark and his family and all of those involved.”

Fox Sports play-by-play announcer Chris Myers also acknowledged Sanchez’s absence on Sunday before introducing Sanchez’s replacement, Brady Quinn. Myers said he wanted to send thoughts and prayers to Sanchez and everyone involved in the incident.

Police officers found Sanchez with the stab wounds when they were dispatched to a downtown pub about 12:35 a.m. Saturday. The truck driver was found in the alley.

Details of the confrontation were disclosed in the affidavit, based on video footage and the truck driver’s statement to police.

The video showed a man believed to be Sanchez running in the alley toward the truck, the affidavit said. The driver works for a company that specializes in commercial cooking oil recycling and disposal, and he was performed his work duties, it said.

Sanchez opened the truck door and began talking to the driver, the affidavit said. Sanchez told the driver he couldn’t be at the loading dock and that Sanchez had spoken to the hotel manager, the document said. Sanchez smelled of alcohol and his speech was slurred, the driver told police.

Affidavit says Sanchez threw truck driver to ground

Sanchez followed the driver from side to side of the truck, the court document said. When the driver darted toward the driver’s door, video showed Sanchez “grabbing and throwing” the driver toward a hotel wall, it said. The fight continued against a dumpster and Sanchez threw the driver to the ground, it said.

Sanchez climbed into the truck but got out when told by the driver he wasn’t allowed in, it said. Sanchez repeated that he spoke to a manager and didn’t want the driver to replace fryer oil, the document said. Sanchez tried again to get into the truck and blocked the driver from calling his manager, it said.

Believing he was in danger, the driver grabbed pepper spray from his pocket and sprayed Sanchez’s face, it said. Sanchez wiped his face and advanced toward the driver again, it said.

The driver then pulled his knife and stabbed Sanchez as the ex-quarterback came at him, it said. The driver fell onto pallets on the ground, he told police.

“While P.T. was on the ground, he could only see the feet of Mr. Sanchez coming at him, making P.T. realize that he was in a life-or-death situation,” the affidavit said.

The driver made it to his feet and stabbed Sanchez the last time as Sanchez came at him, it said.

Sanchez had a 10-year NFL career before retiring in 2019. He appeared on ABC and ESPN for two years before joining Fox Sports as a game analyst in 2021. The Long Beach native led Mission Viejo to a 27-1 record as a starting quarterback, winning a Southern Section Division II title in 2004. He later starred at USC from 2006 to 2008, passing for 3,965 yards and 41 touchdowns en route to a Rose Bowl win.

He left college early and was selected by the New York Jets with the fifth pick in the 2009 NFL draft. Sanchez also appeared in games with Philadelphia, Dallas and Washington.

Schreiner and Marot write for the Associated Press.

For almost two years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone out of his way to avoid agreeing to a Gaza ceasefire.

In November 2023, a deal saw the release of 110 captives taken during Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel.

But a week later, Netanyahu refused to extend the ceasefire, leaving the rest of the captives behind.

Since then, whenever a ceasefire has seemed to be within reach, Netanyahu has shifted the goalposts. In May 2024, Hamas accepted a proposed deal, but Israel denied agreeing and invaded Rafah instead. By September, Netanyahu had introduced a new condition: permanent Israeli control of the Philadelphi Corridor – the area between Egypt and Gaza – which both Cairo and Hamas rejected.

Later, after pushing the position that only a partial deal would be agreed to, Netanyahu changed the parameters and insisted that Israel would only agree to a deal that would see all the captives released – and not in return for an end to the war.

Even when allies advanced proposals, Netanyahu sidestepped them. Also in May 2024, then-US President Joe Biden announced that Israel had offered a ceasefire plan, but Netanyahu stayed silent, and no deal followed.

When a deal was agreed and implemented, Netanyahu ensured it broke down. In January 2025, under pressure from incoming US President Donald Trump, Netanyahu accepted a phased ceasefire deal that would continue until a final settlement to end the war was agreed. Yet by March, Israel unilaterally violated it, resuming bombardment and blockade.

And last week, as Hamas negotiators met in Doha to discuss a new US-backed proposal, Israel bombed them, effectively sabotaging the talks.

Plates spinning

The Israeli government would insist that deals haven’t been reached because the Palestinian group Hamas has not been an honest broker, and because it will attempt to rearm must be eradicated.

But after the attack in Doha, Einav Zangauker, the mother of Israeli captive Matan Zangauker, who has been held in Gaza for almost two years, was clear about who was to blame.

“Why does the prime minister [Netanyahu] insist on blowing up any deal that comes close to happening? Why?” she asked rhetorically.

Why indeed.

Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. One of the reasons for his success is his ability to keep multiple plates spinning – to juggle different priorities, even if they are sometimes contradictory, without resolving them fully.

Being able to juggle these priorities allows Netanyahu to push away decisions that could lead to him losing support from the public or from his political allies. And in a country like Israel, where parliamentary politics is based on who can keep the biggest coalition, that is vital.

Netanyahu is also facing domestic legal trouble – he is on trial for corruption – and staying in power is most likely his best bet at avoiding prison.

Coming back to the question of a Gaza ceasefire, Netanyahu has a fundamental problem: he is beholden to the messianic far right to prop up his government, and they have made it clear: an end to the war at this stage will see them walk away from the prime minister’s coalition, almost certainly causing it to collapse.

The far right – Israelis like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – want to push Palestinians out of Gaza and bring in Israeli settlers to live in the land left empty by those ethnically cleansed.

Netanyahu might not be completely averse to that goal, but he also understands the difficulty in achieving it. Even Israel would be stretched militarily if it were to try to conquer and keep the whole of the Gaza Strip, and months or years of high-intensity conflict would cause more dissent from a military that is heavily reliant on calling up thousands of Israelis as reservists.

And, of course, such a brazen attempt at ethnic cleansing would further isolate Israel internationally.

What comes next?

Instead, Netanyahu keeps the plates spinning. He keeps Ben-Gvir and Smotrich on his side by never agreeing to end the war, strings along mediators by sending negotiation teams to discuss proposals he won’t accept, and never fully commits to the military fight that would be necessary to try to completely take Gaza.

He insists that Hamas cannot be allowed to rule Gaza and rejects the Palestinian Authority ruling the enclave, while also saying Israel doesn’t want to control it.

How long can Netanyahu keep this up? There were times when he struggled, and it almost came crashing down.

Trump did not want to take “no” for an answer in January, forcing Netanyahu to agree to a deal that had been on the table for more than six months. That led to Ben-Gvir resigning his government position and Smotrich threatening to resign his if the deal progressed and led to an end to the war.

As previously mentioned, it did not. And Ben-Gvir quickly came back. Trump says contradictory things about ending the war, only to never firmly tell Netanyahu to stop.

The next Israeli elections have to take place before October 2026. Perhaps Netanyahu will be able to present enough wins to the electorate – he can already argue that he has weakened Hamas, defeated Hezbollah, and bombed Iran’s nuclear sites – to get enough support that he is no longer reliant on Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and can end the war on his terms, whatever they may be.

Or perhaps the war continues, potentially with pauses, only for Israel to return to bombing Gaza when it feels the need to.

Alternatively, continuing the war with no end in sight could increase both foreign and domestic opposition, ramping up the pressure on Netanyahu until he is either forced to make a decision on ending the war or faces defeat at the ballot box in 2026.

The Palestinians of Gaza – of whom Israel has killed more than 64,800 – are the ultimate casualties of the dragging out of this war, as well as the Israeli captives still held in Gaza.

For now, they will keep suffering – as Netanyahu keeps his plates spinning.

Poland has intercepted Russian drones that were flying over its airspace after completing a mission in western Ukraine. It’s the first time a NATO member nation has fired shots in Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Russia has accused Ukraine of carrying out a drone attack on a nuclear plant that has caused a fire and damage to an auxiliary transformer as Ukraine celebrates its Independence Day for the 34th time.

Sunday’s attack forced a 50 percent reduction in the operating capacity at reactor number three at the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), close to the border with Ukraine, according to Russian officials, who added that several power and energy facilities were targeted in the overnight strikes.

The fire at the nuclear facility was quickly extinguished with no injuries reported, the plant’s news service said on Telegram. Two other reactors are operating without power generation, and one is undergoing scheduled repairs, it said, adding that radiation levels were normal.

Alexander Khinshtein, the Kursk region’s acting governor, said Ukrainian attacks on the plant, 60km (38 miles) from the Russia-Ukraine border, “are a threat to nuclear safety and a violation of all international conventions”.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog on Sunday confirmed normal radiation levels near the nuclear plant.

“Monitoring confirms normal radiation levels near Kursk NPP,” the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a post on X.

Russia and Ukraine have also accused each other of attacks on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southeastern Ukraine and warned they could trigger a nuclear accident. The nuclear plant – Europe’s biggest – is under Russian control.

In western Russia’s Leningrad region, firefighters responded to a blaze at the port of Ust-Luga, home to a major fuel export terminal. The regional governor said about 10 Ukrainian drones were shot down and the debris ignited the fire.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence said its air defences intercepted a total of 95 Ukrainian drones over Russian territory overnight into Sunday.

Russia fired 72 drones and decoys along with a cruise missile into Ukraine in the same time period, Ukraine’s air force said. Of these, 48 drones were shot down or jammed, it said.

Ukraine’s Independence Day

The incidents occurred as Ukraine marked its Independence
Day, commemorating its 1991 declaration of independence from the Soviet Union. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered remarks in a video address from Kyiv’s Independence Square, emphasising the nation’s resolve.

“We are building a Ukraine that will have enough strength and power to live in security and peace,” Zelenskyy said while calling for a “just peace”.

“What our future will be is up to us alone,” he said in a nod to the United States-Russia summit in Alaska this month, which many feared would leave Ukrainian and European interests sidelined.

“The world knows this. And the world respects this. It respects Ukraine. It perceives Ukraine as an equal,” he said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov slammed Zelenskyy for “obstinately insisting, setting conditions, demanding an immediate meeting at all costs” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Lavrov also accused Ukrainian authorities of “attempts to disrupt the process that was laid down by Presidents Putin and [Donald] Trump [of the US], which has yielded very good results”.

“We hope that these attempts will be thwarted,” he said, accusing Western countries of trying to “block” peace negotiations to end the Ukraine conflict after a flurry of diplomatic activity appeared to stall.

On Friday, Lavrov said “no meeting” between Zelenskyy and Putin was planned. The Trump administration has been making efforts to organise a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin to find a solution to the war.

Amid the diplomatic efforts, fighting continued on the front lines in eastern Ukraine, where Russia claimed on Saturday that its forces had seized two villages in the Donetsk region.

Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Kyiv on Sunday morning for meetings with Zelenskyy.

“On this special day – Ukraine’s Independence Day – it is especially important for us to feel the support of our friends, and Canada has always stood by our side,” Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, said.

Norway announced significant new military aid on Sunday, pledging about 7 billion kroner ($695m) for air defence systems.

President Donald Trump has announced that United States forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites in a “very successful attack”, adding that the heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility is “gone”.

Trump’s decision on Saturday to join Israel’s military campaign against Iran represents a major escalation of the conflict.

“We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan,” Trump posted on Truth Social, adding that the military planes were now on their way home.

“NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!” he added.

Later, in a televised Oval Office address that lasted just more than three minutes, Trump said that Iran’s future held “either peace or tragedy”, and that there were many other targets that could be hit by the US military.

“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” Trump said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded to the attacks, accusing Washington of breaching international law.

“The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations,” Araghchi said in a social media post.

“The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior.”

He added that Iran “reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people”.

The strikes came as Israel and Iran have been engaged in more than a week of aerial combat, with deaths and injuries in both countries.

Israel launched the attacks on Iran, saying that it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

‘Will not stop’

Iran’s nuclear agency on Sunday said that radiation system data and field surveys do not show signs of contamination or danger to residents near the sites.

“Following the illegal US attack on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites, field surveys and radiation systems data showed: No contamination recorded,” the organisation said in a social media post.

“There is no danger to residents around these sites. Safety is in a stable state.”

Shortly after the attacks, the agency insisted that its work would not be stopped.

“The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran assures the great Iranian nation that despite the evil conspiracies of its enemies, with the efforts of thousands of its revolutionary and motivated scientists and experts, it will not allow the development of this national industry, which is the result of the blood of nuclear martyrs, to be stopped,” it said in a statement.

CBS News reported that the US reached out to Iran diplomatically on Saturday to say the strikes were all it planned and that the US did not intend on regime change efforts.

Trump told Fox News that six bunker-buster bombs were dropped on the Fordow nuclear site, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against the others, Esfahan and Fordow.

US B-2 bombers were involved in the strikes, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

‘Awesome and righteous US might’

Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said that Trump was advised that the bombings would allow for the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear programme.

“Donald Trump has been advised that, as commander-in-chief, this will not lead to escalation,” Halkett reported from Washington, DC. “But he knows there is a chance that there could be an escalation as a result of his action.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision to attack Iran.

“Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,” Netanyahu said.

Israeli military officials said earlier on Saturday that they had completed another series of strikes on dozens of military targets in southwestern Iran.

Israel launched attacks on June 13, saying that Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear weapons, which it neither confirms nor denies.

Iranian officials have repeatedly said that Iran does not plan to develop nuclear weapons but will pursue its right to nuclear energy and research.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was “gravely alarmed” by the “dangerous escalation” of the US strikes.

“There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,” he said in a statement.

At least 430 people have been killed and 3,500 injured in Iran since Israel began its attacks, Iranian state-run Nour News said, citing the Ministry of Health.

In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed by Iranian missile attacks, according to local authorities, in the worst direct conflict between the longtime enemies. More than 450 Iranian missiles have been fired towards Israel, according to the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office.

Israeli officials said that 1,272 people have been injured since the beginning of the hostilities, with 14 in serious condition.

Israel’s attacks on Gaza have not let up since it also began attacking Iran. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in recent days, including dozens seeking aid and families who were bombed in displacement tents.

Speaking with reporters on the White House lawn, President Donald Trump played coy when asked if he would bring the United States into Israel’s war on Iran.

“I may do it. I may not,” he said on Wednesday.

US officials and the president’s allies have stressed that the decision to get involved in the war – or not – lies with Trump, stressing that they trust his instincts.

“He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward,” Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday.

But antiwar advocates have been arguing that it should not all be up to Trump and Congress must be the ultimate decider over war and peace, according to the US Constitution.

As Trump increasingly appears to hint at the possibility of US engagement in the conflict, some lawmakers are seeking to reassert that congressional role under the War Powers Act.

But what are the laws guiding a declaration of war, and could Trump get the US involved in the war without the consent of Congress?

Here’s what you need to know about the laws that govern decisions about war in the US.

What does the US Constitution say?

Section 1 of the US Constitution, which established the legislative branch of the government and outlines its duties, says Congress has the power to “declare war”.

Some advocates take that provision to mean that lawmakers, not the president, have the authority over US military interventions.

When was the last time the US formally declared war?

In 1942, during World War II. Since then, the US has gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq while carrying out strikes and interventions in numerous countries – Serbia, Libya, Somalia and Yemen to name a few.

What authority does the president have when it comes to war?

According to Article II of the constitution, the president is designated “commander in chief” of the armed forces.

Presidents have the power to order the military to respond to attacks and imminent threats. Beyond that, their war-making powers are constrained by Congress. Article II empowers them to direct military operations once Congress has authorised a war. They are responsible for mobilising the military under the guidelines of lawmakers.

That said, successive presidents have used the ability to direct the military on an emergency basis to carry out attacks that they frame as defensive or in response to threats.

How has the US sent soldiers into Iraq and other places without formal declarations of war?

Short of a declaration of war, Congress may grant the president powers to use the military for specific goals through legislation known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global “war on terror”.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. For example, the assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

When was the War Powers Act passed?

Despite the articles outlined in the constitution, presidents have found ways to sidestep Congress in war matters. So in 1973, after decades of US intervention in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia, lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution to reassert their authority over military action.

The law restricts the president’s war-making powers – or that was its intention at least.

It was passed after President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing of Cambodia, which killed tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians and led to widespread protests in the US.

What are the key provisions of the War Powers Act?

The federal law was designed to limit the US president’s power to commit the US to armed conflict.

Enacted over Nixon’s veto, the resolution requires “in the absence of a declaration of war” that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless authorisations to extend them are passed.

Before US troops are committed abroad, Congress must be consulted “in every possible instance”, it says.

Why is the War Powers Act relevant now? 

With the possibility of a US intervention in Iran mounting, lawmakers have been eyeing the five-decade law and pushing for their own version.

On Monday, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a bill requiring that Trump, a Republican, seek authorisation from Congress before ordering military strikes against Iran. That was followed by a similar bill put forward in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by US Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican, and Democrat Ro Khanna of California.

A No War Against Iran Act, introduced by Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, seeks to “prohibit the use of funds for military force against Iran, and for other purposes”.

But even as some polls find Trump supporters are against war with Iran, passage of such bills in the Republican-controlled legislature remains unlikely.

Why is new legislation needed if it’s in the constitution? 

Despite the constitutional separation of war powers, the executive and legislative branches have jockeyed over those roles throughout US history.

The most prominent of these incidents – and the last time such a case made it to the Supreme Court in fact – took place in 1861 at the start of the US Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln blockaded southern ports months before Congress legally declared war on the Confederacy. The highest court eventually ruled the president’s acts were constitutional because the executive “may repel sudden attacks”.

Throughout history, formal congressional declarations of war have remained scarce. There have been just 11.

Instead, Congress has traditionally authorised a wide range of military resolutions.

Does the War Powers Act have any teeth?

Almost since its passage, the 1973 law has been viewed by some critics as deeply ineffective – more of a political tool for lawmakers to voice dissent than as a real check on power. (In the 1980s, then-Senator Joe Biden led a subcommittee that concluded the law fell short of its intent.)

Congressional resolutions seeking to end military involvements unauthorised by Congress are subject to a presidential veto, which can be overridden only by two-thirds majority votes in the House and the Senate.

Others have argued the law served an important role in asserting Congress’s rights and creating a framework for speedy, presidential reporting to Congress. The more than 100 reports that have been sent to Congress since 1973 offer a semblance of transparency.

How do presidents view the act?

While Nixon was the most vociferous in his opposition to the War Powers Act, he’s hardly the only president to appear critical. Modern presidents have routinely sidestepped the act, using creative legal arguments to work around its requirements.

The executive branch has since steadily expanded its war-making powers, particularly after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The 2001 AUMF and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been used to justify attacks on “terrorist groups” in at least 19 countries, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

“The executive branch has stretched this authorization to cover groups that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, including those such as ISIS [ISIL], which did not even exist at the time,” Heather Brandon-Smith, the nonprofit’s legislative director of foreign policy, wrote in a briefing.

And while organisations like the International Crisis Group have urged a rehaul or repeal of the AUMF, successive administrations have shown little interest in doing so. In recent years, congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have only begun chipping away at the acts.

The Senate in 2023 voted to repeal the 2001 AUMF although the move was largely viewed as symbolic. The House similarly voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF in 2021. But both laws still remain in effect.

Can the War Powers Act stop Trump from going to war with Iran?

That remains to be seen, but it does not seem likely.

During Trump’s first term in office, Congress sought to limit presidential war authority for the first time since the Vietnam War.

In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end US support for the Saudi-United Arab Emirates war in Yemen, which Trump quickly vetoed.

A year later, a similar situation played out after Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani.

In response, both houses of Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran.

That legislation was vetoed by Trump, and once again, there were not enough Republicans to meet the two-thirds majority necessary in both houses to override the veto.

With the balance of power in Congress since then fully shifting to the Republicans in Trump’s second term, the newest war powers resolutions face an even stiffer battle.

SLUGS are the bane of every gardener’s life.

But Britain’s favourite gardening expert Alan Titchmarsh has one method that he swears by for combating the slimy slitherers.

3

3

3

Writing in County Life, the 76-year-old spoke about his lifelong battle with the garden pests – and his resistance to the idea that ‘slugs are our friend’.

The Gardening Club star says he favours copper rings that sit around the base of the plant.

The copper rings are more expensive as they can be reused multiple times – they typically retail for between £25 and £30.

However, those who are greenfingered on a budget can instead invest in copper tape – which works in the same fashion and is available for only £4.99 on Amazon for a 25-metre roll.

Titchmarsh said: “The only things that have worked for me are those rings of copper that resemble a vicar’s clerical collar and which can be pushed into the ground around individual plants to discourage the molluscs from coming any closer.

“They are reputed (if kept clean) to impart a kind of electric shock to any slug or snail attempting to scale their dizzying height of 1in.”

How does copper tape work?

The copper tape works by imparting an electrical charge that gives the slug a small static shock.

The tape can be trimmed to size and wound around the lips of lower pots and planners – creating an uncrossable barrier.

Other slug deterrent methods

The veteran presenter has tried a number of other methods for tackling the slug menace over the years – with limited results.

Titchmarsh says he long ago stopped using slug pellets, which cause the slugs to convulse but also pose a poisoning threat to hedgehods and birds.

The CBE has also tried various products that create a sharp or uncomfortable texture for the slugs to crawl over.

However, crushed eggshells, holly leaves, sharp grit, gravel and even sheep’s wool were all ‘at best, unreliable and more often than not totally ineffective’, according to Titchmarsh.

Coffee grounds are another foodstuff often touted as a slug repellent, but Titchmarsh says he doesn’t drink enough of it – plus he prefers that his garden doesn’t smell of Starbucks.

That leaves hand-picking them off plants by hand in the evening, a time-intensive procedure that also requires gloves if you want to avoid slimy hands.

Titchmarsh says he has had some sucess with pot feet, which only allow the more acrobatic slugs to gain access to your prized blooms.

Gardeners could be forgiven for feeling confused about how best to combat slugs given the array of techniques floated for dealing with this in recent years.

One gardening fan claimed that garlic helped to repel slugs and snails – even posting a recipe for a garlic spray.

Another intriguing possibility suggested as a natural pest deterrent is foxgloves, whose purple flowers contain toxic compounds such as digitalis glycosides, which can be very harmful for slugs. 

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Dick Cheney on Monday fired Air Force Chief of Staff Michael J. Dugan, saying that the four-star general displayed “poor judgment at a very sensitive time” by revealing possible targets of air strikes in Iraq in the event of war.

President Bush and Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concurred in the dismissal, which came in a 10-minute meeting with Dugan in Cheney’s Pentagon office early Monday.

Dugan was fired for comments published in The Times and Washington Post on Sunday, in which he said that–if war comes–the U.S. military intends to conduct a massive air campaign against Iraq, specifically targeting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, his family and his palace guard.

“Given the extreme delicacy and sensitivity of the current situation, it’s incumbent upon senior officials to be discreet and tactful in their public statements, and I found those qualities lacking” in Dugan’s remarks, Cheney said in a news conference Monday.

The defense secretary said Dugan’s comments put at risk the lives of the more than 150,000 U.S. troops in the region and jeopardized the five-week-old Persian Gulf operation by revealing classified details of U.S. war planning.

Cheney said he will nominate Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, currently commander of Pacific Air Forces, to be the next chief of staff.

As for Dugan, who had been in the post only since July, Cheney said: “He will be retired.”

The only other member of the Joint Chiefs to have been fired was Adm. Louis E. Denfeld, sacked in October, 1949, by President Harry S. Truman. Denfeld, ironically, had irritated the President and his fellow chiefs for raising questions about the value of air power in modern warfare.

Cheney cited a number of critical sins that Dugan committed in the interviews with three journalists conducted over several hours aboard his aircraft on a trip to Saudi Arabia last week.

“We never talk about future operations, such as the selection of specific targets for potential air strikes. We never talk about the targeting of specific individuals who are officials of other governments. Taking such action might be a violation of the standing presidential executive order” banning assassinations, Cheney said.

He also chastised Dugan for underestimating Iraqi military capabilities, for revealing classified information about the size and disposition of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia and for demeaning the role of the other U.S. military services by citing air power as the “only option” available for defeating the 1-million-member Iraqi army.

Cheney also was disturbed with Dugan for “treating (U.S.) casualties cavalierly,” an aide said. He apparently was referring to a comment from a senior Dugan aide on the trip who called the expected loss of American lives in such a military operation a “manageable risk.”

Powell reportedly was furious when he saw the Post story on Sunday morning and called Cheney at home at 7 a.m. to point it out. Cheney then sought The Times’ version to see if Dugan’s remarks were accurately reported. The two articles were similar, and the quotations in common were exactly the same. Cheney was “very upset,” but did not make up his mind to fire Dugan until Sunday night, a knowledgeable defense official said.

An aide to Cheney said the defense secretary believes Dugan’s comments “showed egregious judgment” and could not be tolerated. “He became the self-appointed spokesman for (Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who is directing the U.S. operation in Saudi Arabia) and the chiefs. He revealed classified information. He talked about operational plans that are fundamentally not his choice. He raised sensitive matters of diplomacy relating to other nations. He set a poor standard of military leadership, that a military commander would not take seriously the people we’re up against,” this official said.

“Based on all these things, the secretary just lost confidence in him,” the aide said.

Powell contacted Dugan in Florida and asked if he had been accurately quoted. Dugan assured him that he had been. Powell told him to report to Cheney’s office at 8 a.m. Monday but did not tell the Air Force chief that the decision had been made to dismiss him.

Dugan did not know when he entered Cheney’s Pentagon office that he was about to be fired, an Air Force official said.

In his news conference, Cheney did not dispute the truth of any of Dugan’s assertions, which included a statement that the Joint Chiefs have concluded that the United States would never have sufficient ground forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Iraqi troops out of Kuwait and would therefore be dependent on air power to sway any potential battle.

Dugan also revealed for the first time that the United States has deployed 420 combat aircraft to the Arabian Peninsula–nearly as much striking power as the fleet dedicated to defending Europe against the Soviet Union. Previous estimates of air power in the Persian Gulf region were about half that.

The Air Force chief also disclosed for the first time that the United States had recently purchased advanced Israeli cruise missiles and deployed them aboard B-52 bombers stationed within striking distance of Baghdad. In addition, he said that the Pentagon has consulted with Israeli intelligence agencies to determine the best targets in Iraq.

The most troubling matter, senior Pentagon officials said, was Dugan’s discussion of the possible targeting of Hussein, his family, his inner circle and even his mistress. Cheney suggested that such action “might” violate Executive Order 12333, issued in December, 1981, which specifically prohibits assassinations.

“I think it’s inappropriate . . . for U.S. officials to talk about targeting specific foreign individuals,” Cheney said in the news conference. “I think it is potentially a violation of the standing presidential Executive Order.”

However, the ban on assassinations was modified last year to allow for the killing of senior enemy military commanders as part of a “decapitation” strategy. Hussein is commander in chief of Iraqi military forces–as Bush is commander of all U.S. forces–and thus would be a legal target for military action, Pentagon officials said Monday.

But it clearly would violate U.S. law and policy to target Hussein’s wife, his children or his girlfriend, officials noted.

Cheney, pressed on a variety of Dugan’s assertions, said he could not confirm or deny them without violating the security considerations for which he dismissed Dugan.

The defense secretary also noted that Dugan is “not even in the chain of command,” which runs from Bush to Cheney to Powell to Schwarzkopf, commander of the U.S. Central Command, which covers the Middle East.

Under the current military structure, the members of the Joint Chiefs are advisers to the chairman and provide forces, equipment and support to theater commanders, known inside the Pentagon as the “war-fighting CINCs” or regional commanders in chief.

Cheney praised Dugan’s record of 32 years of Air Force service and said that he regretted firing him. “But under the circumstances, I felt it was necessary,” the secretary said. Dugan’s comments, Cheney noted, “did not in my mind reveal an adequate understanding of the situation and what is expected of him as chief of staff of the Air Force and as a member of the Joint Chiefs.”

The abrupt dismissal undoubtedly will reverberate throughout the Pentagon and the entire U.S. military, which has not enjoyed good relations with the press for two generations.

“You won’t be talking to any generals any time soon,” one senior Army officer told a reporter Monday.

Cheney denied that he was sending a message to military officers to avoid reporters. But he said that he expected his subordinates “to exercise discretion in what they say. . . . That sort of wide-ranging speculation about those matters that were discussed in the interviews that were granted by the general is what I felt was inappropriate.”

Air Force Secretary Donald B. Rice, who had recommended Dugan for the job and who concurred in Cheney’s decision to relieve him, said in a prepared statement: “I regret the circumstances that made it necessary for Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney to take this action. Gen. Dugan is a superb officer. His leadership and innovation will be missed by every man and woman in the Air Force.”

Dugan, 53, jumped over a number of senior Air Force officers when he was chosen for the chief of staff job earlier this year. He is a fighter and attack plane pilot with more than 4,500 flying hours and 300 combat missions in Vietnam.

A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., Dugan rose rapidly through the Air Force, serving chiefly in fighter squadron commands. His last post before becoming chief of staff in July was as commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe.

His last Washington assignment was in 1988 and early 1989, when he served as deputy Air Force chief of staff for plans and operations.

Among his decorations are the Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, Purple Heart, Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm.

Dugan has six children, three of them Air Force officers. When the articles appeared Sunday, he was in Florida attending a ceremony for his son Michael’s graduation from F-16 pilot training school.

Sen. John S. McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Navy bomber pilot who was shot down and taken prisoner in Vietnam, said the American system of civilian control of the military dictated Cheney’s firing of Dugan. “I think that clearly Cheney has the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to discipline anyone who violated policy,” he said.

McCain said he was especially troubled by Dugan’s comment that in any bombing campaign “the cutting edge would be in downtown Baghdad. This wouldn’t be a Vietnam-style operation, nibbling around the edges. . . . The way to hurt you is at home, not out in the woods somewhere.”

McCain said he did not think the American public would accept that tactic, even if it were justifiable on purely military grounds.

“His comments are at best not cognizant of the sensitivity of those remarks and the reaction that would be fueled by them,” McCain said. “It’s too bad, because I’m sure the guy was highly qualified for the job. But it comes down to the fact that the civilian leaders have a right to choose whom they want.”

Sens. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement that they believe Dugan’s firing to be justified.

“The recent public statements attributed to Gen. Dugan were inappropriate,” they said.

THOSE WHO WENT TOO FAR The following is a list of some U.S. military leaders who have been cashiered or disciplined for their comments. GEN. MICHAEL J. DUGAN, Air Force chief of staff

Fired on Sept. 17, 1990

By: Defense Secretary Dick Cheney

For: Publicly discussing possible targets of U.S. air strikes in Iraq if President Bush ordered use of military force against Saddam Hussein.

MAJ. GEN. JOHN K. SINGLAUB, U.S. chief of staff in South Korea

Fired May 21, 1977

By: President Jimmy Carter

For: Publicly opposing Carter’s plan to withdraw U.S. ground forces from Korea. He contended that the move would lead to war.

GEN. DOUGLAS MacARTHUR, Commander, U.S. , U.N. forces in Korean War

Fired on April 11, 1951

By: President Harry S. Truman

For: Making public his disagreement with Truman over methods to win the war, including his desire to bomb supply centers in Manchuria.

ADM. LOUIS E. DENFELD, Chief of naval operations

Fired in October, 1949

By: President Harry S. Truman

For: Speaking out on Capitol Hill against Navy budget cuts and questioning the value of air power.

GEN. WINFIELD SCOTT, General in chief, U.S. Army

Suspended for a year in 1810

By: Court-martial

For: Calling his superior officer, Gen. James Wilkinson, as great a traitor as Aaron Burr.

(Southland Edition) THOSE WHO WENT TOO FAR . . . OR NOT FAR ENOUGH

The following is a list of some U.S. military leaders who have been cashiered or disciplined for their actions or comments. ADM. HUSBAND E. KIMMEL Commander in chief, Pacific Fleet

Retired in 1942 after being accused of dereliction of duty

By: Naval board of inquiry

For: Poor state of readiness of naval forces; poor response to Japan attack on Pearl Harbor.

GEN. JOSEPH HOOKER Commander, Union Army

Relieved of command in April, 1863

By: President Abraham Lincoln

For: Indecisiveness at the battle of Chancellorsville which allowed Confederates to mount surprise attack.

GEN. AMBROSE E. BURNSIDE Commander, Army of the Potomac

Relieved of command in December, 1862.

By: President Lincoln

For: Ordering his forces on Dec. 13, 1862, to make suicidal assault on entrenched

Confederate positions in Fredericksburg, Va., and sustaining 12,600 casualties.

GEN. GEORGE B. McCLELLAN Commander, Union Army

Fired on Nov. 7, 1862

By: President Lincoln

For: Procrastination and failure to capitalize on military opportunities, including allowing Confederates to hold the line at the Battle of Antietam on Sept. 17.

BRIG. GEN. JOHN POPE Union Army

Fired on Sept. 5, 1862

By: President Abraham Lincoln

For: Leading Union forces to defeat at the Second Bull Run battle in August.

DUGAN WAS WARNED: Cheney aides told the general to steer clear of the press. A10

WHITE HOUSE CONCERN: Officials are said to feel the military was too candid. A12

By AP with Indrabati Lahiri

Published on
21/05/2025 – 11:32 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

Oil prices surged on Wednesday after a report by CNN suggested that Israel could launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence. 

US crude oil jumped 1.1% on Wednesday morning to $62.7 per barrel, whereas Brent crude oil advanced 1% to $66 per barrel. 

However, CNN emphasised that it wasn’t clear as yet whether a confirmed decision about the possible attack had been made.

Oil markets have been volatile for the last few days, mainly because of anticipation around the next round of Iran-US nuclear talks, due to be held this weekend. These talks are also expected to help increase global oil supply. 

However, any strike against Iran by Israel is likely to negatively impact these negotiations, which in turn, could further fuel Middle Eastern tensions and significantly affect oil markets. 

Although Israel has not been shy about its intentions to target Iran, several Iranian nuclear facilities may already be capable of defending themselves against the majority of strikes. 

Robert Rennie, head of commodity and carbon research for Westpac Banking Corp, said, as reported by Bloomberg: “This is the clearest sign yet of how high the stakes are in the US-Iran nuclear talks and the lengths Israel may go to if Iran insists on maintaining its commercial nuclear capabilities.”

He added: “Crude will maintain a risk premium as long as the current talks appear to be going nowhere.”

Traditional forex safe havens such as the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc also saw a slight boost following the release of the CNN report. 

US-Iran nuclear talks hang in the balance

In talks on the nuclear issue, Iranian officials have warned they could pursue a nuclear weapon with their stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to unleash airstrikes targeting Iran’s program if a deal isn’t reached.

US special envoy Steve Witkoff said in an ABC News interview on Sunday, as reported by the BBC: “We cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability. We’ve delivered a proposal to the Iranians that we think addresses some of this without disrespecting them. We want to get to a solution here. And we think that will be able to.”

He added: “But everything begins from our standpoint with a deal that does not include enrichment. We cannot have that. Because enrichment enables weaponisation, and we will not allow a bomb to get here.”

Earlier this week, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei revealed that he did not believe that the latest round of talks between Iran and the US would be successful.

Despite rising sanctions from the US and some of its allies such as Europe and the UK, Iran has been able to continue exporting crude oil and has also increased its supply in the last few months.

Ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts such as the Israel-Hamas war and Houthi Red Sea attacks have gone a long way in souring relations between Israel and Iran in the last several months.

As such, any new attack, especially on Iran’s nuclear facilities may significantly affect the wider Middle Eastern region and further delay any hope of stability in the area.