limit

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it has lifted its self-imposed 2,000km (1,250-mile) limit on the range of its ballistic missiles, raising questions over whether Tehran now considers hitting targets beyond the Middle East.

“This limitation has been lifted for us,” IRGC spokesman Brigadier-General Hossein Mohebbi announced at a news conference in Tehran on Saturday.

Mohebbi did not say whether Iran already had missiles that exceed the cap, but added that Iran would show its capabilities through action rather than statements, as Tehran has hardened its position and shifted towards an “offensive” military doctrine.

The announcement came days after Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei warned that “any kind and level of threat” from the United States or Israel would be met with a response unlimited by geography. Mojtaba has said Iran needs to end the “no war, no peace” situation amid the volatile status of the Strait of Hormuz and the US naval blockade on the Iranian ports.

It also comes as the diplomatic push to end the US-Israel war on Iran has intensified, with Trump on Monday saying there is “positive momentum” towards ending the military hostilities after talks with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani in Washington, DC.

So what does lifting the limit actually change, and why is Iran doing it now?

Where could Iran’s missiles reach?

Iran already has operational capabilities to launch missiles beyond 2,000km, but it has kept a cap on them amid focus on regional deterrence. Iranian missiles can reach the entire Arabian Peninsula, the Levant and most of Egypt, as well as parts of Southeastern Europe, including Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia.

For Gulf states, the announcement changes little. They already sit well within Iran’s 2,000km range and have come under repeated Iranian missile fire since the US and Israel launched the war on February 28.

The change can help Iran to position some of its rocket launchers in the country’s east, from where it would require a bigger range to reach Israel. The US and its European allies fear Iran can target US bases in the Indian Ocean and Europe.

In March, the United Kingdom accused Iran of firing missiles towards the joint US-UK base at Diego Garcia, some 4,000km (about 2,500 miles) from Iran. Tehran denied targeting the base located in the Indian Ocean, saying it was “an Israeli false flag” operation.

In 2019, the UK, France and Germany said their modelling put a lighter-warhead version of Iran’s Khorramshahr missile at a range of approximately 3,000km (about 1,900 miles). US officials have also said technology from Iran’s space programme could be repurposed to build intercontinental ballistic missiles, The Associated Press news agency reported. Iran currently does not have intercontinental ballistic missiles in its arsenal.

Muhanad Seloom, assistant professor of international politics and security at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera that the Diego Garcia launch had already made Iran’s point. “Iran denied doing that, but they wanted to signal that they have the capacity. So yes, they do have the capacity,” he said.

Seloom, who is also an honorary research fellow at the University of Exeter, pointed to Iran’s space launches over the past decade, saying the same rockets could in theory reach anywhere in the world. “How effective, that’s a totally different story,” he said, adding that Iran could probably field missiles with a range of about 5,000km (3,100 miles).

Iranian security analyst Mohamed Taheri made a similar case on Iran’s state-run Channel 3, saying range had stopped being a technical obstacle for Iran by the mid-2010s. “Even now we have no technical limitation in reaching ranges above 2,000km,” he said.

“If we were to increase that range to 4,000km, we would certainly have most of Europe within our missile range, and roughly most of North Africa as well,” Taheri said.

How has Europe responded to Iran’s missile threat?

The IRGC announcement about ending its self-imposed limit seems to be a shift from Tehran’s assurances to Europe on missile range. Europe’s relations with Iran have deteriorated over its nuclear programme and regional geopolitical ambitions. The European Union’s designation of the IRGC as a “terrorist” group and its allowing the US to use bases on the continent have attracted Iran’s ire.

Iran warned Bulgaria repeatedly this year over US aircraft on its soil. In April, Tehran sent a diplomatic note cautioning Bulgaria against letting US military aircraft use its airports for operations against Iran.

When Bulgaria’s parliament approved hosting up to eight US KC-135 refuelling tankers at Bezmer airbase in July, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Bulgarian decision-makers “must bear responsibility” for the move. It was Tehran’s third warning to Sofia.

In August, two Iranian insiders told the Financial Times that the US bases in countries such as Bulgaria had been assessed as possible targets, describing the threat to Europe as real but confined to the continent’s south and southeast. Two US tankers left Bezmer on August 21.

Last month, the UK spy chief said Iran is stepping up targeting of military bases in Europe. It came after UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the IRGC was “almost certainly” behind a suspected plot against Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford, an airbase used by US bombers to carry out strikes on Iran. The incident prompted the US to withdraw its military jets from the facility over security concerns earlier this month. Tehran has denied involvement, saying it was a “false flag” operation.

On Monday, the US military evacuated aircraft from a second British base, RAF Mildenhall, “in the wake of a threat from Iran”, according to The Wall Street Journal. The refuelling tankers were moved to Germany and elsewhere, and US officials were still discussing the precise nature of the threat.

The UK Ministry of Defence did not confirm the reason. “Aircraft and other assets move regularly according to operational requirements,” a spokesperson said.

Bases in the UK, Germany and Romania are among other European locations the US has used during the conflict.

“It’s possible that in this war we may set aside the geographic restraint we’ve observed stemming from our diplomatic relations with certain countries and even be able to strike the bases that exist in Europe,” Iran’s Taheri said.

For European governments, the announcement is “worrying … but not alarming”, Doha Institute’s Seloom said. Missiles would have to travel far to reach mainland Europe or the UK, he explained, giving NATO members with assets in the region early warning and time to intercept them.

He said threatening Europe would not serve Iran’s interests, since European governments did not back Trump’s war and have pushed for a diplomatic solution despite paying a heavy price in energy costs. That could change if Iran comes to be framed as a threat to international security, he warned, pointing to Iraq, where successive UN Security Council resolutions preceded European support for the 2003 invasion.

“No one could defend Iranian policies when it comes to threatening Europe or the UK,” Seloom said. Lifting the limit, he added, suggests Tehran “is reading this conflict as existential now”.

That, he argued, is what should concern the whole region. “When you give them the idea that you have only one option, is to die … they can do anything. There would be no red lines,” he said.

Why is Iran doing this now?

Because the cap was self-imposed, Iran could have dropped it at any time. For years, the IRGC said the limit was meant to reassure European countries that they would not be targeted.

Mohebbi, the IRGC spokesman, went further, saying that if Iran decided to change its nuclear doctrine and build a bomb, the necessary preparations would be made.

One reading is deterrence: a warning to Washington, and to European governments hosting US aircraft, that renewed strikes could bring a wider response. Iran’s earlier threats to Bulgaria were seen in similar terms, as an attempt to discourage European governments from supporting US operations.

Tehran is also eyeing diplomatic leverage amid efforts to end the conflict. It can offer the cap as a concession, suggesting that any restraint on range now has a price at the negotiating table.

“It’s both,” Seloom said. He argued that Tehran sees a narrow window before the new US Congress convenes in January, in which Trump will want a deal he can present as a success.

The decision to lift the limit, he said, “is basically to push the Trump administration to go for a deal, not to launch another campaign of military action”. With Trump threatening to hit bridges and the power grid, Iran is “signalling that they can go even crazier”.

What has the West historically said about Iran’s missiles?

Western concern over Iran’s missiles has run alongside the nuclear file for more than a decade.

The 2015 nuclear deal signed under US President Barack Obama put a limit on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), put a curb on Iran’s ballistic missile programme.

Those curbs expired in October 2023, following which Western countries expressed concerns about Tehran’s missile activities. In September 2025, France, Germany and the UK reimposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear enrichment. But Tehran defended the enrichment boost after blaming Trump for withdrawing from the 2015 deal.

Trump put the destruction of Iran’s missile and nuclear programme as the main goals of the war launched in February. “We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground,” he had said.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said days later the goal was to destroy Iranian offensive missiles and missile production. Experts and US intelligence assessments, however, indicated Iran’s missile programme was years away from threatening the US homeland.

Before the war, Iran held the largest ballistic missile stockpile in the Middle East, estimated at between 2,500 and 6,000 missiles.

HOUSTON — The mayor of Houston on Friday said the city would limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, heralding “a new model” of immigration enforcement after Democrats won power in Texas for the first time in decades.

Mayor John Whitmire said the city would go after immigrants “that pose a danger, not those that are going about their family business, work and education.”

A traffic incident “will not even … you write a citation or you warn them and they go about their way. No contact with (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) over nonviolent, non-jailable offenses. It reduces the fear and anxiety.”

Details of the change were to be spelled out in an executive order but the move by the nation’s fourth-largest city is one of the first steps to curb ICE’s powers since Tuesday’s election.

The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Houston has sparked protests after an ICE officer fatally shot a Mexican homebuilder this summer and another struck a man with a car.

A grand jury last week indicted ICE officer Mario Alberto Morales on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Prosecutors say Morales intentionally rammed his car into Miguel Parra Hernandez, whose leg was broken. ICE has asserted that Parra Hernandez ran in front of the vehicle, an account that prosecutors say is contradicted by video.

Oyekanmi writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider outlawing school diversity policies that limit Asian American students at magnet programs and selective high schools.

Three years ago, the court ruled that Harvard and other universities may not discriminate on whom they admit based on the race of their applicants. Evidence in that case showed that Asian applicants with very high test scores were often turned down.

But the justices have been divided over admissions rules for highly selective high schools in Boston, New York and Fairfax County, Va., as well as magnet programs for gifted middle school students.

In most instances, judges have said school officials may use “race-neutral” policies to achieve racial diversity. For example, giving an automatic admission to the top 5% of the students in all of a big city’s high schools or its middle schools could achieve greater racial and ethnic diversity.

But the court’s conservatives, led by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, have condemned such policies as thinly disguised racial discrimination.

Magnet programs exist across the country, including in California and Los Angeles, and were conceived as a form of voluntary integration — a way to get white students to attend the same schools as nonwhite students, without having to resort to forced busing.

The idea was that a special school program would be attractive enough to serve as a “magnet” for white students to enroll at a school they might not otherwise attend. A mix of white and nonwhite students was seen as a benefit to the nonwhite students, because white students would be sharing the fate of the nonwhite students.

Asian students were frequently part of that original equation on the nonwhite side of the ledger and counted with other students classified as nonwhite, such as Black or Latino students. But in terms of student achievement, Asian students have performed more like white students, frequently surpassing white students academically.

One subset of magnet schools requires a selective admissions process, and these are at the center of the current dispute.

The court agreed to hear an appeal from parents in Montgomery County, Md., who were upset by a sharp drop in Asian students at its four magnet schools for gifted students.

For a decade, the school board had been troubled that fewer than 15% of the students at its magnet schools were Black or Latino, even though they made up about half of the student population.

In contrast, Asian students were less than 15% of the county’s student population but made up about half of the enrolees at the magnet programs.

After several years of debate, school officials dropped the use of a countywide competitive test and chose top performing students at all of its middle schools using a lottery.

That prompted a lawsuit that reached the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fairfax County in northern Virginia had adopted a somewhat similar policy for the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology. A federal judge ruled for Asian parents and said their students had been deprived of a “level playing field” in competing for admission.

But the 4th Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, disagreed and said Asian American students were still winning more seats than their percentage of the school population.

The Assn. for Education Fairness, the parents group in Montgomery County, lost for the same reason in the 4th Circuit. The number of admitted Asian students had declined, but their percentage remained well above their share of school population.

They appealed and urged the Supreme Court to rule on their case and to clarify the law.

“School districts across the country have overhauled admissions criteria for competitive public schools after concluding that existing systems produced undesirable racial enrollment patterns,” they said.

They said the court should end this type of racial discrimination against Asian students.

However, a longtime champion of admissions policies that rely on social and economic fairness said he hoped the court would side with Montgomery County.

“The Supreme Court has long disfavored racial preferences and pointed to race-neutral programs that look at factors like socioeconomic disadvantage as the right way to do affirmative action,” said Richard D. Kahlenberg, director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute.

He said the Maryland school board followed that rule.

“It essentially provided an admissions break to students based not on race, but on the economic disadvantage of the elementary school they attended. The question now opened is whether the court will stand by precedent or move the goal posts. Is the court opposed to racial preferences, or to racial diversity itself?”

Los Angeles Unified, the nation’s second-largest school system, has an extensive magnet system, with 66 whole-school magnets and 268 magnet centers within a larger campus.

At this point, many of the magnets provide no discernible integration benefit and are viewed instead as inducements for any student to enroll. Many magnets are nearly all students of color because few white students apply.

A few schools, however, have more applicants than spaces, and the district relies on “the Magnet Priority Point System and the need to maintain a racially balanced enrollment, and by available space.”

Parents must mark one federally recognized race or ethnicity on the application, or it won’t be processed. A family gets points, for example, if a student applied unsuccessfully for a magnet in the past.

In L.A. Unified, 53 schools are designated for students rated as “gifted,” and there are four campuses with programs for highly gifted students, typically identified by a professional evaluator.

Available recent data for the highly gifted program at North Hollywood High indicated that the largest percentage of students, about 38%, were Asian. Overall, the district’s enrollment is about 3.5% Asian.

The justices will hear arguments in the case early next year.

Savage reported from Washington and Blume from Los Angeles.