impact

COLUMBUS, Ohio — U.S. veterans of the war in Afghanistan are telling a commission reviewing decisions on the 20-year conflict that their experience was not only hell, but also confounding, demoralizing and at times humiliating.

The bipartisan Afghanistan War Commission aims to reflect such veterans’ experiences in a report due to Congress next year, which will analyze key strategic, diplomatic, military and operational decisions made between June 2001 and the chaotic withdrawal in August 2021.

The group released its second interim report on Tuesday, drawing no conclusions yet but identifying themes emerging from thousands of pages of government documents; some 160 interviews with cabinet-level officials, military commanders, diplomats, Afghan and Pakistani leaders and others; and forums with veterans like one recently held at a national Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Columbus, Ohio.

“What can we learn from the Afghanistan War?” asked an Aug. 12 discussion session with four of the commission’s 16 members. What they got was two straight hours of dozens of veterans’ personal stories — not one glowingly positive, and most saturated in frustration and disappointment.

“I think the best way to describe that experience was awful,” said Marine veteran Brittany Dymond, who served in Afghanistan in 2012.

Navy veteran Florence Welch said the 2021 withdrawal made her ashamed she ever served there.

“It turned us into a Vietnam, a Vietnam that none of us worked for,” she said.

Members of Congress, some driven by having served in the war, created the independent commission several months after the withdrawal, after an assessment by the Democratic administration of then-President Biden faulted the actions of President Trump’s first administration for constraining U.S. options. A Republican review, in turn, blamed Biden. Views of the events remain divided, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered yet another review this spring.

The commission wants to understand the bigger picture of a conflict that spanned four presidential administrations and cost more than 2,400 American lives, said Co-Chair Dr. Colin Jackson.

“So we’re interested in looking hard at the end of U.S. engagement in Afghanistan, but we’re equally interested in understanding the beginning, the middle and the end,” he said in an interview in Columbus.

Co-chair Shamila Chaudhary said the panel is also exploring more sweeping questions.

“So our work is not just about what the U.S. did in Afghanistan but what the U.S. should be doing in any country where it deems it has a national security interest,” she said. “And not just should it be there, but how it should behave, what values does it guide itself by, and how does it engage with individuals who are very different from themselves.”

Jackson said one of the commission’s priorities is making sure the final report, due in August 2026, isn’t “unrecognizable to any veteran of the Afghanistan conflict.”

“The nature of the report should be representative of every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine experience,” he said.

Dymond told commissioners a big problem was the mission.

“You cannot exert a democratic agenda, which is our foreign policy, you cannot do that on a culture of people who are not bought into your ideology,” she said. “What else do we expect the outcome to be? And so we had two decades of service members lost and maimed because we’re trying to change an ideology that they didn’t ask for.”

The experience left eight-year Army veteran Steve Orf demoralized. He said he didn’t go there “to beat a bad guy.”

“Those of us who served generally wanted to believe that we were helping to improve the world, and we carried with us the hopes, values, and principles of the United States — values and principles that also seem to have been casualties of this war,” he told commissioners. “For many of us, faith with our leaders is broken and trust in our country is broken.”

Tuesday’s report identifies emerging themes of the review to include strategic drift, interagency incoherence, and whether the war inside Afghanistan and the counterterrorism war beyond were pursuing the same aims or at cross purposes.

It also details difficulties the commission has encountered getting key documents. According to the report, the Biden administration initially denied the commission’s requests for White House materials on the implementation of the February 2020 peace agreement Trump signed with the Taliban, called the Doha Agreement, and on the handling of the withdrawal, citing executive confidentiality concerns.

The transition to Trump’s second term brought further delays and complications, but since the commission has pressed the urgency of its mission with the new administration, critical intelligence and documents have now begun to flow, the report says.

Smyth and Aftoora-Orsagos write for the Associated Press.

Panorama High‘s flag football team won the Valley Mission League last season, and there’s even more excitement when the season begins this month because the passing duo of quarterback Yadhira Hermenegildo and receiver Livier Andrade returns.

Hermenegildo passed for 47 touchdowns as a sophomore. Andrade caught 25 touchdowns.

Panorama opens its season Aug. 20 at Bishop Alemany.

Defending City Section Open Division champion Banning remains the favorite, with San Pedro and Birmingham expected to provide strong competition.

New rules that allow defenses to be within one yard of the line of scrimmage at the snap instead of seven yards will test quarterbacks in early season games as they perhaps need to rely more on using their legs to create time to throw or make quick outlet passes.

United States President Donald Trump’s tariffs are set to come into effect on August 1. They mark a significant escalation in US trade policy, leading to higher prices for consumers and bigger financial hits for companies.

Trump had initially postponed “reciprocal tariffs”, which he had announced on April 2, giving countries time to reach trade deals with the US.

On Sunday, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the August 1 tariffs were a “hard deadline”.

What are the August 1 tariffs?

Several countries are facing a slew of tariffs on August 1. While the situation remains dynamic, different levies are going to hit countries ranging from 15 percent on Japan and the European Union to 50 percent on Brazil.

Who has struck last-minute deals?

Trump has struck a series of bilateral trade deals in the last few days.

With the EU, the US secured $750bn in energy purchases and reduced tariffs on steel via a quota system. In exchange, it lowered auto tariffs from 30 percent to 15 percent, applying the same rate to pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.

Japan committed $550bn in investments targeting US industries such as semiconductors, AI and energy, while increasing rice imports under a 100,000-tonne duty-free quota. It will also purchase US commodities like ethanol, aircraft and defence goods.

Indonesia reportedly agreed to duty-free access for many US products and increased energy and agricultural imports, although Jakarta has only confirmed tariff cuts and key commodity purchases so far.

The United Kingdom gained aerospace and auto export benefits, while granting the US duty-free beef quotas and a 1.4 billion litre ethanol quota.

China saw its reciprocal tariffs slashed from 145 percent to the baseline 10 percent that was imposed on all countries. In addition, there’s a 20 percent punitive tariff for fentanyl trafficking. A temporary pause for the final tariff rate has been extended until August 12 while the two hammer out a deal. China matched the cut and eased non-tariff measures, resuming rare earth exports and accepting Boeing deliveries.

Deals with the Philippines, Cambodia and Vietnam also include tariff adjustments and market access, though not all terms have been confirmed by those governments.

Which sectors are expected to be hit worst?

According to a Reuters news agency tracker, which looks at how companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw automakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit by tariff threats.

Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, led to increased costs.

“When you start to see tariffs at 20 or more, you reach a point where firms may stop importing altogether,” Joseph Foudy, an economics professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, told Al Jazeera.

“Firms simply postpone major decisions, delay hiring, and economic activity declines,” Foudy added.

Economists widely agree that the impact of tariffs implemented so far has not been fully felt, as many businesses built up their stockpiles of inventories in advance to mitigate rising costs.

In an analysis published last month, BBVA Research estimated that even the current level of US tariffs – including a baseline 10 percent duty on nearly all countries, and higher levies on cars and steel – could slow economic growth and reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.5 of a percentage point in the short term, and by more than 2 percentage points over the medium term.

Have prices increased?

According to HBS Pricing Lab reports, prices of US-made and imported goods saw modest seasonal declines through early March, with imports falling slightly more. The first 10 percent US tariff on Chinese goods (February 4) had little effect, but prices rose after broader tariffs were imposed on March 4, including a 25 percent tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports and another 10 percent tariff on China. Imported goods prices jumped by 1.2 points, while prices of domestic goods rose by half as much.

After a 10 percent global tariff was announced on April 2, “Liberation Day”, and 145 percent on China on April 10, import prices rose more sharply. A brief price dip followed the May 12 tariff rollback on Chinese goods, but trends resumed by June. Overall, import prices rose about 3 percent since March – small compared to headline tariff rates.

Have tariffs brought in money?

Trump’s tariffs have brought in revenue from higher duties paid by importers. Between January 2 to July 25, the US Treasury Department data shows that the US generated $124bn this year from tariffs. This is 131 percent more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025 as collections accelerate from Trump’s trade campaign.

Washington, DC – New media reports in the United States, citing intelligence assessments, have cast doubt over President Donald Trump’s assertion that Washington’s military strikes last month “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme.

The Washington Post and NBC News reported that US officials were saying that only one of the three Iranian nuclear sites – the Fordow facility – targeted by the US has been destroyed.

The Post’s report, released on Friday, also raised questions on whether the centrifuges used to enrich uranium at the deepest level of Fordow were destroyed or moved before the attack.

“We definitely can’t say it was obliterated,” an unidentified official told the newspaper, referring to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Trump has insisted that the US strikes were a “spectacular” success, lashing out at any reports questioning the level of damage they inflicted on Iran’s nuclear programme.

An initial US intelligence assessment, leaked to several media outlets after the attack last month, said the strikes failed to destroy key components of Iran’s nuclear programme and only delayed its work by months.

But the Pentagon said earlier in July that the attacks degraded the Iranian programme by one to two years.

While the strikes on Fordow – initially thought to be the most guarded facility, buried inside a mountain – initially took centre stage, the NBC News and Washington Post reports suggested that the facilities in Natanz and Isfahan also had deep tunnels.

‘Impenetrable’

The US military did not use enormous bunker-busting bombs against the Isfahan site and targeted surface infrastructure instead.

A congressional aide familiar with intelligence briefings told the Post that the Pentagon had assessed that the underground facilities at Isfahan were “pretty much impenetrable”.

The Pentagon responded to both reports by reiterating that all three sites were “completely and totally obliterated”.

Israel, which started the war by attacking Iran without direct provocation last month, has backed the US administration’s assessment, while threatening further strikes against Tehran if it resumes its nuclear programme.

For its part, Tehran has not provided details about the state of its nuclear sites.

Some Iranian officials have said that the facilities sustained significant damage from US and Israeli attacks. But Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said after the war that Trump had “exaggerated” the impact of the strikes.

The location and state of Iran’s highly enriched uranium also remain unknown.

Iran’s nuclear agency and regulators in neighbouring states have said they did not detect a spike in radioactivity after the bombings, suggesting the strikes did not result in uranium contamination.

But Rafael Grossi, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, did not rule out that the uranium containers may have been damaged in the attacks.

“We don’t know where this material could be or if part of it could have been under the attack during those 12 days,” Grossi told CBS News last month.

According to Grossi, Iran could resume uranium enrichment in a “matter of months”.

The war

Israel launched a massive attack against Iran on June 13, killing several top military officials, as well as nuclear scientists.

The bombing campaign targeted military sites, civilian infrastructure and residential buildings across the country, killing hundreds of civilians.

Iran responded with barrages of missiles against Israel that left widespread destruction and claimed the lives of at least 29 people.

The US joined the Israeli campaign on June 22, striking the three nuclear sites. Iran retaliated with a missile attack against an air base housing US troops in Qatar.

Initially, Trump said the Iranian attack was thwarted, but after satellite images showed damage at the base, the Pentagon acknowledged that one of the missiles was not intercepted.

“One Iranian ballistic missile impacted Al Udeid Air Base June 23 while the remainder of the missiles were intercepted by US and Qatari air defence systems,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told Al Jazeera in an email last week.

“The impact did minimal damage to equipment and structures on the base. There were no injuries.”

After a ceasefire was reached to end the 12-day war, both the US and Iran expressed willingness to engage in diplomacy to resolve the nuclear file. But talks have not materialised.

Iran and the US were periodically holding nuclear talks before Israel launched its war in June.

EU-Iran talks

During his first term in 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The agreement saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions against its economy.

In recent days, European officials have suggested that they could impose “snap-back” sanctions against Iran as part of the deal that has long been violated by the US.

Tehran, which started enriching uranium beyond the limits set by the JCPOA after the US withdrawal, insists that Washington was the party that nixed the agreement, stressing that the deal acknowledges Iran’s enrichment rights.

I had a joint teleconference with E3 FMs & EU HR last night, in which I made the following points clear:

It was the US that withdrew from a two-year negotiated deal -coordinated by EU in 2015- not Iran; and it was US that left the negotiation table in June this year and chose a… pic.twitter.com/NFQdK2HZD4

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) July 18, 2025

On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he held talks with the top diplomats of France, the United Kingdom and Germany – known as the E3 – as well as the European Union’s high representative.

Araghchi said Europeans should put aside “worn-out policies of threat and pressure”.

“It was the US that withdrew from a two-year negotiated deal – coordinated by EU in 2015 – not Iran; and it was US that left the negotiation table in June this year and chose a military option instead, not Iran,” the Iranian foreign minister said in a social media post.

“Any new round of talks is only possible when the other side is ready for a fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial nuclear deal.”

Tehran denies seeking a nuclear bomb. Israel, meanwhile, is widely believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

July 16 (UPI) — The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced Wednesday that wholesale prices didn’t change in June, making predictions of tariff-boosted inflation murky.

The bureau’s Producer Price Index, or PPI, summary stated that, once seasonally adjusted, “final demand was unchanged in June.”

Final demand prices increased 0.3% in May after declining by 0.3% in April. Without adjustment, the index for final demand rose 2.3% from June 2024.

There was a 0.3% rise in June on prices for final demand goods, but that was offset by a 0.1% decrease in the index for final demand services.

When Wednesday’s numbers are compared with the upward totals from Tuesday’s consumer price index release, the data currently shows that President Donald Trump’s tariffs may only be making a negligible impact on the American economy, and on the costs for goods and services.

One indication that the tariffs may not be economically painful at this point is the Index’s goods category, where duty-sensitive communication equipment posted a gain of only 0.8%.

The indexes for goods such as residential electric power and gasoline, as well as for canned, cooked, smoked or prepared poultry, and for tree nuts and meats did move up, but the price for chicken eggs dropped a whopping 21.8%.

Other indexes that fell include those for plastic materials, thermoplastic resins and natural gas liquids.

However, the less-than-negative totals haven’t allayed concerns by Fed officials, who remain concerned about how tariffs will affect the U.S. economy. They do feel that the American economy is in a strong position, which means they will wait on any changing of rates.