president

WASHINGTON — White House chief of staff Susie Wiles has been diagnosed with early stage breast cancer but will continue working during her treatment, President Donald Trump said in a social media post on Monday.

Trump said Wiles’ prognosis is “excellent” and described her as “one of the strongest people I know.” He said Wiles plans to begin treatment immediately but made no suggestion she was pulling back on her work as one of his closest advisers.

“During the treatment period, she will be spending virtually full time at the White House, which makes me, as President, very happy!” Trump said on his Truth Social platform. “She will soon be better than ever!”

It comes as the Republican president confronts mounting challenges on global and national fronts, from the war in Iran and soaring oil prices to this fall’s midterm elections and American’s concerns over affordability.

Wiles, 68, is a longtime Trump ally who rose from his campaign co-chair to his closest adviser and counsel. The first woman to become White House chief of staff, Wiles spent decades as a lobbyist and political operative in Florida and led Trump’s 2016 effort in the state.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio had some explaining to do when he arrived on Capitol Hill for a classified briefing with lawmakers in early March.

Members of Congress wanted to know why, two days earlier on Feb. 28, the United States and Israel had attacked Iran and killed its supreme leader — without notifying them first. After the briefing, Rubio told reporters the U.S. preemptively struck Iran to get ahead of an Israeli attack. A day later, he tried to clarify his remarks.

“The bottom line is this: The president determined we were not going to get hit first,” Rubio said. “It’s that simple, guys.”

For members of Congress, the moment underscored how marginal a role Congress has been able to play in a war that, two weeks in, has spread into more than a dozen neighboring countries, led to the deaths of at least 13 American service members and cost billions of dollars.

In the two weeks since the war began, Congress has largely been sidelined. Lawmakers have cycled through classified briefings, TV interviews and hallway scrums with reporters, but have taken little formal action related to Trump’s war efforts — just two unsuccessful votes aimed at limiting the conflict.

Most of the debate has taken place online, where some GOP lawmakers have drawn rebukes from colleagues for saying America “needs more Islamophobia” and other Islamophobic rhetoric about Iran and its people.

At the same time, Trump has pressed Congress to focus instead on a controversial voting law, signaling to the Republican-led Congress that he wants their focus on the election rather than a historic moment abroad. The president, meanwhile, has offered shifting explanations on how much longer he intends to be at war in the Middle East, telling Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade on Friday that he will conclude the hostilities when “I feel it in my bones.”

Taking Trump’s statements at face value, Democrats and some Republicans have begun to worry that more American troops could be deployed inside Iran to complete the mission — and lawmakers are still trying to understand the war’s threat to the global energy markets as fighting encroaches on the Strait of Hormuz and Americans face soaring gas prices.

The Republican majorities have for the most part rallied behind President Trump, and have blocked measures in both the House and Senate that would have halted the war against Iran and forced him to seek congressional approval for additional hostilities.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) likened efforts to rein in Trump’s war efforts to siding “with the enemy.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was even more effusive, arguing there is a precedent for presidents using military force without congressional authority.

“The norm in this country is not to declare war by Congress, but for the military to be used by the commander in chief. Sometimes authorization from the Congress is requested, sometimes it is not,” Graham said during a Senate floor speech. “More than not, it is not requested.”

Presidents have frequently used military force without a formal declaration of war — including in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq — but experts argue there is a difference between bypassing a formal declaration and sidelining Congress altogether.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who served under President Obama, pointed to the 2011 raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, as an example of how the process once worked.

Even though it was a covert Special Forces operation, Panetta said, he personally briefed key congressional leaders before Bin Laden’s killing took place.

That kind of consultation, he said, no longer happens. Instead, lawmakers learn about military operations the same way ordinary Americans do — by watching the news — and then demand to be briefed, he said.

“By that time, the country is pretty much committed to war,” Panetta said.

Presidents of both parties have expanded their power to wage war unilaterally, but Panetta said he believes Trump has crossed a new threshold by dispensing not just with congressional approval but with the courtesy of a briefing.

“It’s not good for our democracy. It’s not a good process,” he said. “It’s not what our forefathers would have wanted.”

Rubio, however, has argued the administration has kept congressional leaders apprised. He told reporters there is no legal requirement to notify all members of Congress and that he briefed the Gang of Eight — a group made up of the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, as well as the leaders of the respective intelligence committees — within 48 hours of the attack against Iran.

“We notified congressional leadership,” Rubio said. “The law says we have to notify them 48 hours after beginning hostilities. We’ve done that.”

In the statement issued Friday, the White House defended the president’s approach to the war in relation to how its involved Congress, adding that Trump and administration officials “continue to keep bipartisan lawmakers in Congress apprised of the operation as the United States continues to dominate.”

“Past presidents have talked about this for 47 years — but only President Trump has had the courage to do something about it,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said.

Democrats say they’re ‘flying blind’

Democratic lawmakers, including some who have been included in classified briefings, have accused administration officials of keeping them “in the dark” and are beginning to demand public congressional hearings.

“I want this administration to testify in public, under oath, regarding a bunch of questions we have in order for the American people to see for themselves,” said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). “I do believe this administration has lied to the American public and Congress.”

Gomez, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said he never expected that he would have to spend so much time trying to discern if the administration is lying to lawmakers.

“I think it’s that’s what makes the job harder,” he said.

Democrats, who are in the minority, have limited power to call those briefings, but have continued to put pressure on the administration in a public way.

Senate Democrats last week sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, demanding answers by Wednesday about reports that a U.S. airstrike hit an Iranian elementary school.

Iranian officials said the explosion killed at least 175 people, most of them children. The U.S. has not taken responsibility for the attack, and Hegseth has said the matter is under investigation. Trump, without providing evidence, has claimed Iran was responsible for the attack.

Seeking answers has been a common theme among Democrats since the start of the war. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), for instance, said after a classified briefing last week that he had “left with more questions than answers” and a real concern about the possibility of deploying American troops to Iran.

Power of the purse

If the war continues, Congress still retains some leverage.

Under the War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in 1973, unauthorized deployments into hostile situations must end after 60 days unless Congress votes to declare war or passes legislation authorizing the use of the military.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he has told Hegseth and Rubio that if they violate that provision it will be like “stealing money” for actions that are not approved by Congress and warned they could be held civilly liable.

The 60-day deadline will be a key moment for Congress to step in, Sherman said; otherwise there will be growing concern about Trump having “unchecked power.”

So far, he thinks Republicans in control view their job as “butler to the president,” and that the Constitution already gives Trump “too much power over the military.”

“If Congress is controlled by people who want to be servants to the president, it’s going to do an incredibly bad job of being a check on the president,” he said.

Beyond the War Powers Resolution, lawmakers also have power over the appropriations process and could deny the administration’s request to boost military funding.

“The Congress can stop military action by cutting off funding. If you don’t like the war in Iran, say we won’t pay for it. We have the constitutional power of the purse,” Graham said in a Senate floor speech early in March.

The Trump administration’s war with Iran cost $11.3 billion during its first six days, according to the Associated Press.

But Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Diego), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, says he is aware of the figure only because of news reports — not because the Pentagon has been transparent.

“We are flying blind in the sense that we just don’t know. We don’t know how much is being spent or what it’s being spent on,” Levin said.

Levin says the military will probably need to bolster its munitions stockpile at the rate the conflict is going.

If the Pentagon does request more money, Levin said, he would try to ensure that “not one more dollar goes toward any of this without clear answers and a clear plan.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is stepping up its ambitious effort to replace about $1.6 trillion in lost tariff revenue that was eliminated by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a range of the president’s import taxes.

Recovering that lost revenue, which the White House was counting on to help offset the steep, multitrillion-dollar cost of its tax cuts, is possible but will be challenging, experts say. The administration has to use different legal provisions to impose new import taxes, and those provisions require longer, complex processes that U.S. companies can use to seek exemptions. It could be months or more before it is clear how much revenue the replacement tariffs will yield.

“I wouldn’t bet against this administration being able to get back on paper the same effective tariff rate they had before,” said Elena Patel, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. But the new approach will “make it easier for people to contest the tariffs, which is going to put a big asterisk on the revenue until all that is settled.”

On Wednesday, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration will investigate 16 economies — including the European Union — over whether their governments are subsidizing excessive factory capacity in a way that disadvantages U.S. manufacturing. The investigation will also cover China, South Korea and Japan, Greer said.

In addition, he said, there would be a second investigation of dozens of countries to see whether their failure to ban goods made by forced labor amounts to an unfair trade practice that harms the United States. That investigation will also cover the EU and China, as well as Mexico, Canada, Australia and Brazil.

Both investigations are being conducted under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which requires the administration to consult with the targeted countries, as well as hold public hearings and allow affected U.S. industries to comment. A hearing as part of the factory capacity investigation will be held May 5, while a hearing on the forced labor investigation will occur April 28.

It’s a far cry from the emergency law that President Trump relied on in his first year in office, which allowed him to immediately impose tariffs on any country, at nearly any level, simply by issuing an executive order.

Moments after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump imposed a 10% tariff on all imports under a separate legal authority, but that duty can only last for 150 days. The president has said he would raise it to 15%, the maximum allowed, but has yet to do so. Some two dozen states have already challenged the new taxes. The administration is aiming to complete its Section 301 investigations before the 10% duties expire.

The effort underscores the importance that the Trump White House has placed on tariffs as a revenue-raiser at a time when the federal government is facing huge annual budget deficits for decades into the future. Previous administrations, by contrast, used tariffs more sparingly to narrowly protect specific industries.

Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, noted that the first investigation covers roughly 70% of imports, while the second would cover nearly all of them.

“That breadth suggests the goal isn’t to address the issues at hand, but instead to re-create a sweeping tariff tool,” she said.

Trump portrays tariffs as a way to force foreign countries to essentially help pay the cost of U.S. government services, even though all recent economic studies find that American companies and consumers are paying the duties, including analyses by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and economists at Harvard University. In his State of the Union address last month, Trump even touted his tariffs as a potential replacement for the income tax, which would return the United States’ tax regime to the late 19th century.

Trump also wants tariffs to help pay for the tax cuts he extended in key legislation last year. The tax cut legislation is expected, according to the most recent estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, to add $4.7 trillion to the national debt over a decade, while all Trump’s import taxes, including ones not struck down by the court, were projected to offset about $3 trillion — or two-thirds of that cost.

The high court’s ruling Feb. 20 that he could no longer impose emergency tariffs eliminated about $1.6 trillion in expected revenue over the next decade, according to the CBO.

Some of Trump’s import taxes remain place, including previous tariffs on China and Canada that were imposed after earlier 301 investigations. The administration has also imposed tariffs on some specific products, including steel, lumber and cars. Those, combined with the 10% tariff for part of this year, should yield about $668 billion over the next decade, the Tax Foundation estimates.

“It’s going to take a really big patchwork of these other investigations to make up for the [lost] tariffs,” York said.

The administration’s efforts are also unusual because they reflect an overreliance on tariffs to bring in more government revenue. Trump has also said the import taxes are intended to return manufacturing to the United States — manufacturing jobs, however, are down since he returned to office — and he has used the tariffs to leverage trade deals.

“What makes this really different,” said Kent Smetters, executive director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, “it is really the first time tariffs have been mainly used as a revenue raiser.”

Patel, meanwhile, argues that raising revenue can be done more reliably and straightforwardly by Congress. Laws like Section 301 are traditionally intended to be used to address specific trade policy concerns in particular countries.

“It’s not supposed to be there to raise revenue,” she said. “If we want to raise revenue through tariffs, then Congress should impose a broad based tariff.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — After two weeks of war with Iran, the Trump administration is being forced to temper its expectations of a swift end to the conflict, with U.S. intelligence and defense officials expressing doubt it can achieve the overthrow of Iran’s government and the destruction of its nuclear program through military means.

It was an outcome forewarned by analysts at the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon, who together alerted the administration to the pitfalls full-scale war with Iran would bring before President Trump decided to proceed, two U.S. officials told The Times, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Certain military goals of Operation Epic Fury laid out at the start of the war are still seen as achievable at the Pentagon, with U.S. and Israeli strikes making steady progress degrading Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, its drone program and its navy.

But a prewar U.S. intelligence assessment, that an air assault was unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic, still holds, with the intelligence community now casting doubt the assault had any more political effect than to radicalize a government already devoted to the destruction of Israel and harming the United States.

A military procession in Tehran carries the casket of Ali Shamkhani, political advisor to Iran’s last Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was also killed in U.S.-Israeli attacks.

(Atta Kenare / AFP/Getty Images)

Concern has only grown that Iran’s new government will make the fateful strategic decision to build a bomb after the war, unless Trump decides to escalate the conflict with a perilous ground invasion. And the White House now contends with a new mission imperative, created by its decision to launch the war itself, of reopening the Strait of Hormuz to vital shipping traffic that carries 20% of the world’s daily oil and liquid natural gas supply.

The foreign policy strategy Trump publicly laid out as his playbook for the conflict — to come down hard on the government, decapitating its leadership, and hope the remnants would seek mercy — has not worked, with Tehran looking for new ways to expand the war and maximize pain for the U.S. administration.

Trump has minimized the conflict as an “excursion” that would end “very soon,” while also calling it a war, vowing to take the time he needs to “finish the job.” He says it will conclude whenever he decides to end it.

It remains possible that a declaration from Trump that the fighting is over results in a ceasefire, as it did in June of last year, when Trump demanded an end to 12 days of war between Iran and Israel. But the Iranians have a vote, too — and senior leadership in the Islamic Republic have made plain they plan to continue fighting this time whether Trump likes it or not.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced that an additional expeditionary unit of 2,500 Marines was being deployed to the region to support the effort.

“Starting wars is an easy matter,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, wrote on social media. “Ending them does not happen with a few tweets.

“We will not leave you until you admit your mistake and pay its price,” he added.

It is a sore lesson for a president whose decade in public life has been distinguished by an exceptional ability to warp reality to his liking.

“The White House has created a dilemma for America: If it declares victory and ends the war, it leaves in place a weakened Iranian government with the means and renewed motivation to pursue nuclear weapons,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.

“If it presses on with the war,” Pauly added, “it risks the kind of mission creep that may eventually find American boots on the ground.”

In a news release last week, the White House said that, “from the opening hours of this historic campaign, the objectives were clear: obliterate Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity, annihilate its navy, sever its support for terrorist proxies, and ensure the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism will never acquire a nuclear weapon.”

Yet, at the start of the operation, Trump issued a promise to the people of Iran that, at the end of the U.S.-Israeli campaign, Iran’s military and paramilitary infrastructure would be so badly hobbled that a rare, generational opportunity would emerge for them to take their government back.

“To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump said. “Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

Trump said in the days that followed he would need to have a say over the next ruler, after assassinating the country’s longtime supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the Iranian system of clerics and militants defied the president, selecting in Khamenei’s son a man viewed as even more hostile to the West than his father was.

Israeli leadership, too, set out regime change as a goal of the war. Yet even their officials now say that a substantial leadership change in Tehran is an unlikely result.

Trump would go on to insist on the “unconditional surrender” from the Iranian government, a demand that he later said would be satisfied by the incapacitation of Iran’s military.

Repeating his conviction that the war will end soon, Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade in an interview Friday that he would order an end to the fighting “when I feel it. When I feel it in my bones.”

“The problem with the administration’s approach is that it has constantly shifted its goals. Some are achievable, such as degrading Iran’s conventional force. Others are not, such as picking the next leader of Iran,” said Ray Takeyh, a scholar on Iran at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The mixed messages have led to confusion at home,” Takeyh added, “and lack of planning for oil shortages and getting the Americans out of the region shows that process and personnel can actually matter.”

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign was always designed to unfold in three phases: degrading Iran’s ability to wage war, reducing Iran’s ability to repress democratic forces inside the country, and finally, encouraging the Iranian people to rise up.

“The president controls the strategy, but no president fully controls the endgame because the regime gets a vote,” Dubowitz said. “The endgame is not a scripted political transition directed from Washington. It is a regime under simultaneous military, economic, and internal pressure — to strip of its war-making and repression capabilities — and whether that produces succession, fracture, or collapse will ultimately be decided in Tehran.”

Whether the conflict will achieve the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is an equally grave question in Washington, where officials are debating over a list of stark options on how to physically destroy, bury or retrieve the fissile material that Tehran could use to build a nuclear weapon — a threat seen as only more grave under the stewardship of an angry and vengeful government.

“The war was publicly justified, to the extent it was justified at all, in terms of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. Very few strikes have been directed against nuclear-related targets, however — almost certainly because those that survived last June’s attacks are invulnerable to air attack,” said James Acton, co‑director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Unless the U.S. and Israel attempt high-risk special forces operations or a ground incursion,” he added, “Iran will end the war with its surviving nuclear infrastructure largely intact and greater incentives to build the bomb.”

Pauly agreed it is unrealistic to expect the United States and Israel can destroy Iran’s nuclear program through air power alone. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency believes Iran has roughly 440 kilograms — about 970 pounds — of 60% highly enriched uranium, possibly spread across multiple facilities.

“Securing this material will require either U.S. ground troops or, after some coercive bargain is reached, international inspectors,” Pauly said.

In an exchange with reporters last week at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had few details to offer on what U.S. options were to remove or eliminate an accessible uranium stockpile, enriched to near weapons grade, that had been buried in a U.S. operation last year intended on obliterating the nuclear threat.

Diplomacy, he suggested, might be required to secure the material.

“I will say we have a range of options, up to and including Iran deciding that they will give those up,” he told reporters, “which of course we would welcome.”

Islamabad hits Kandahar facility after Taliban drones strike civilian areas and military sites as conflict intensifies.

Pakistan has carried out strikes on an Afghan military facility in Kandahar after Taliban drones targeted civilian areas and military installations across the country.

The strikes on Saturday came after Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari condemned the overnight drone attacks, warning Kabul it had “crossed a red line by attempting to target our civilians”.

Pakistan’s military said the drones, described as locally produced and rudimentary, were intercepted before reaching their targets, though falling debris wounded two children in Quetta and civilians in Kohat and Rawalpindi.

A security source told the AFP news agency that airspace around the capital, Islamabad, had been temporarily closed when the drones were detected.

Islamabad said the Kandahar facility had been used both to launch the drone attacks and as a base for cross-border rebel activity.

The exchange marks the sharpest single escalation yet in a conflict that has been building since late February, when Pakistan launched military operations against what it said were Pakistan Taliban fighters sheltering on Afghan soil.

Islamabad also accuses Kabul of harbouring fighters from the ISIL (ISIS) group’s Khorasan province affiliate.

The Taliban government has denied both charges.

The drone attacks followed Pakistani strikes on Kabul and eastern border provinces in Afghanistan overnight on Thursday into Friday. The Pakistani attacks killed four people in the capital, women and children among them, and two more in the east.

In the Pul-e-Charkhi neighbourhood of Kabul, one resident described being buried under rubble after his home was hit, saying he lay there believing it was his “last breath” before neighbours pulled him free.

A local representative told AFP that those killed were “ordinary people, poor people” with no involvement in the conflict.

Pakistani aircraft also struck a fuel depot belonging to the private airline Kam Air near Kandahar airport, which an airport official said supplied aid organisations, including the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The official added that there were “no military installations” at the site.

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defence claimed that its forces had captured a Pakistani border post and killed 14 soldiers.

Islamabad dismissed the assertion as baseless, with the prime minister’s spokesman accusing the Taliban of “weaving fantasies” rather than dismantling rebel networks on Afghan territory.

The UN mission in Afghanistan says at least 75 civilians have been killed and 193 injured since hostilities intensified on February 26, a toll that includes 24 children.

According to the UN refugee agency, about 115,000 people have been forced from their homes.

The crisis is unfolding as the wider region remains engulfed by the US-Israeli war with Iran, which began just two days after the Pakistan-Afghanistan clashes escalated.

Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi has urged both sides to pursue dialogue, warning that further force would only deepen the crisis, though his appeal came as Pakistani jets were already in the air over Kandahar.

March 13 (Asia Today) — South Korean Prime Minister Kim Min-seok met U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance at the White House in Washington on Wednesday to discuss bilateral investment, trade issues and developments on the Korean Peninsula.

The meeting came about 50 days after the two leaders first met during Kim’s visit to Washington in January.

Kim highlighted the passage of a special law supporting South Korean investment in the United States, which cleared the National Assembly earlier this week.

He said the legislation demonstrates Seoul’s commitment to implementing bilateral investment agreements and could contribute to revitalizing U.S. manufacturing and job creation.

Kim added that the measure could also accelerate implementation of agreements outlined in a joint fact sheet between the two countries, including cooperation in areas such as nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear energy and shipbuilding.

Vance welcomed the legislation, saying it provides a legal foundation for implementing investment agreements between the two countries, according to South Korea’s Prime Minister’s Office.

The two sides also discussed cooperation in critical minerals and issues related to non-tariff trade barriers.

Kim explained Seoul’s recent decision to allow U.S. companies to export mapping data from South Korea, describing it as a forward-looking step aimed at strengthening cooperation.

Vance praised the move and said the two countries should continue consultations on non-tariff trade barriers.

Kim also said issues previously raised by Vance during their January meeting – including concerns related to the e-commerce company Coupang and certain religious matters – are now being handled in a stable manner.

Vance said the United States respects South Korea’s domestic legal framework and thanked Seoul for continuing to communicate with Washington on issues of interest to the United States.

The leaders also exchanged views on the Korean Peninsula and reaffirmed that the door remains open for dialogue with North Korea.

They agreed to maintain close coordination on developments related to the peninsula.

South Korea’s Prime Minister’s Office said the meeting helped deepen personal trust between Kim and Vance and is expected to strengthen communication on key bilateral issues.

The office’s statement did not mention whether the two discussed the Section 301 trade investigation launched this week by the Office of the United States Trade Representative targeting several major trading partners, including South Korea.

However, the issue of non-tariff barriers raised during the meeting could be related to that investigation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260313010003892

March 14 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced that U.S. forces “totally obliterated” every military target on Iran’s Kharg Island, a key port that exports the vast majority of Iran’s oil.

In a post on Truth Social on Friday evening, Trump described the attack as “one of the most powerful bombing raids in the History of the Middle East.”

He said he directed U.S. Central Command to carry out the bombings after Iran halted ships’ passage through the Straight of Hormuz. About 20% of the world’s crude oil passes through the strait.

“For reasons of decency, I have chosen NOT to wipe out the Oil Infrastructure on the island,” Trump wrote.

“However, should Iran, or anyone else, do anything to interfere with the Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz, I will immediately reconsider this decision.”

Kharg Island is about 15 miles south of the Iranian mainland through which about 90% of the country’s oil exports pass, The Washington Post reported. It’s a critical piece of Iran’s economy and a full attack on the oil infrastructure there could hinder Iran’s ability to pay its military.

Iranian officials said the site was “proceeding normally” after the U.S. attack.

In response to Friday’s bombings on Kharg Island, Iran threatened its own attack on key oil infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, CNN reported.

Oil has been a key factor in the war in Iran, which began Feb. 28 with surprise U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on dozens of Iranian sites. AAA reported Saturday that the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $3.68 in the United States, up 23% since the start of the war.

This could, in turn, have a dramatic impact on other aspects of the U.S. economy, including food prices, jet fuel and fertilizer.

March 13 (Asia Today) — South Korean President Lee Jae-myung on Thursday urged citizens to report gas stations that violate the government’s newly introduced fuel price cap, saying public monitoring is necessary to prevent price gouging.

Lee posted a message on the social media platform X on the first day of the petroleum price cap system, asking citizens to report any gas stations charging excessive prices.

“Fuel prices are stabilizing, right? If you see price gouging, please report it,” Lee wrote.

The president also shared a map showing gasoline prices at gas stations in the Siheung area of Gyeonggi Province. The prices ranged from the 1,700 won to 1,900 won range per liter.

The government began enforcing the price cap at midnight Thursday.

Under the measure, refiners’ supply price for regular gasoline is capped at 1,724 won per liter, or about $1.29. The cap for automotive diesel is 1,713 won, about $1.28, and for kerosene 1,320 won, about $0.99.

Lee’s public posting of gas station prices was widely interpreted as a signal that the presidential office is closely monitoring fuel prices.

About 90 minutes before sharing the map, Lee posted another message warning companies against violating the policy.

“Starting today we are fully implementing the petroleum price cap system,” he wrote.

“To stabilize domestic fuel prices amid volatile international conditions, we have set clear upper limits on supply prices.”

Lee also called for citizen participation in monitoring the market.

“If you discover any gas station violating the price cap, please report it immediately,” he wrote. “Public vigilance is necessary to prevent businesses from taking advantage of the situation to earn excessive profits.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260313010003999

President Trump announced on social media Friday that Richard Grenell, the former ambassador to Germany who Trump appointed as president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts more than a year ago, is stepping down. Grenell will be replaced by Matt Floca, the vice president of facilities operations at the center.

Change has been the only constant at the Kennedy Center since Trump fired the center’s board in early February of last year and had himself appointed chairman. A week later amid mass artist defections that included Shonda Rhimes and Renée Fleming, Trump appointed Grenell, a close ally, as interim executive director, a post Grenell held until now.

“Ric Grenell has done an excellent job in helping to coordinate various elements of the Center during the transition period, and I want to thank him for the outstanding work he has done,” Trump posted on Truth Social, adding that after an upcoming two-year closure for renovations, the center “will be, at its completion, the finest facility of its kind anywhere in the World!”

News of the center’s imminent closure came as a surprise to employees and arts fans still reeling from Trump’s announcement late last year that the board had voted to rename the venue the Trump-Kennedy Center, which prompted another wave of performance cancellations, including by composer Philip Glass. The Washington National Opera also announced in early January that it would leave the center.

Grenell’s tenure was marked by controversy every step of the way, which Grenell met with combative defiance, often slamming artists that criticized the center’s decisions. He also was known for not granting interviews to press that he deemed unfriendly, instead speaking on the record only to right-leaning news organizations.

The Kennedy Center did not respond to a request for comment on Grenell’s departure.

Miguel Diaz-Canel says discussions held to find solutions ‘through dialogue’ as Washington tightens oil blockade.

Cuban ⁠officials have ⁠held talks with the United States government to seek solutions to the crippling ⁠blockade imposed by Washington, President Miguel Diaz-Canel said, as the Trump administration’s threats to take over the Caribbean nation escalate.

“These talks have been aimed at finding solutions through dialogue to the bilateral differences ‌we have between the two nations,” Diaz-Canel said in a video aired on national television on Friday.

Diaz-Canel said “international factors have facilitated these exchanges”.

He said no petroleum shipments have arrived on the island in the past three months, which he blamed on the US energy blockade.

Critical oil shipments from Venezuela were halted after the US attacked the South American country and abducted President Nicolas Maduro.

Cuba’s western region was hit by a massive blackout last week, leaving millions without power.

The talks come days after President Donald Trump levelled his latest threat at Cuba, saying the White House’s plans for the Caribbean nation may include a “friendly takeover”.

‘Impact tremendous’

Diaz-Canel added that Cuba, which produces 40 percent of its petroleum, has been generating its own power but that it hasn’t been sufficient to meet demand.

He said the lack of power has affected communications, education and transportation, and that the government has had to postpone surgeries for tens of thousands of people as a result.

“The impact is tremendous,” he said.

The president added that the aim was “to determine the willingness of both parties to take concrete actions for the benefit of the people of both countries”.

“And in addition, to identify areas of cooperation to confront threats and guarantee the security and peace of both nations, as well as in the region,” he said.

For decades, severe US economic sanctions on Cuba have crippled its economy and cut it off from global trade. In response, Cuba has depended on oil supplies from foreign allies, including Mexico, Russia and Venezuela.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has laid out terms for ending the war with the United States and Israel in what analysts say is a possible sign of de-escalation from Tehran as the US-Israel war on Iran entered its 13th day on Thursday.

In a post on Wednesday on social site X, Pezeshkian said he had spoken to his counterparts in Russia and Pakistan, and that he had confirmed “Iran’s commitment to peace”.

“The only way to end this war – ignited by the Zionist regime & US – is recognizing Iran’s legitimate rights, payment of reparations, and firm int’l guarantees against future aggression,” Pezeshkian wrote.

This is a rare posture from Tehran, which has maintained a defiant stance and initially rejected any possibility of negotiations or a ceasefire when war broke out nearly two weeks ago.

Pezeshkian’s statement comes as pressure mounts on the US to halt what has become a very costly mission. Analysts say speculation from Washington that Iran would quickly submit after the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were misguided.

Tehran is likely going to determine the end of this war, not the US or Israel, because of its ability to inflict economic pain broadly, they say.

Amid a military pummelling by the US and Israel, Iran has launched heavy retaliatory strikes at US assets and other critical infrastructure in Gulf countries, upsetting global supplies. It has also adopted what analysts call “asymmetric” tactics – such as disrupting the critical Strait of Hormuz and threatening US banking-linked entities – to inflict as much economic pain on the region and wider world as it can.

This is what we know about Pezeshkian’s stance and what the pressures are on both sides to draw the conflict to a close, quickly.

What has the war cost so far?

Economically, both sides have weaponised energy. Israel first targeted Iran’s oil facilities in Tehran on March 8, prompting an outcry from global health experts over the potential risk of air and water pollution.

Iran has, meanwhile, tightened its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz shipping route – the only route to open sea for oil producers in the Gulf – with its military promising on Wednesday that it has the capabilities to wage a long war that could “destroy” the world economy.

Attacks on ships in the strait, through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas traffic normally passes, have effectively closed the route.

Oil prices rocketed above $100 per barrel late last week, up from around $65 before the war, with ordinary buyers feeling the increases at pumps in the US, Europe and parts of Africa.

On Wednesday, Iran upped the ante, saying it would not allow “a litre of oil” to pass through the strait and warned the world to expect a $200-per-barrel price tag.

“We don’t know how quickly it’ll revert back,” Freya Beamish, chief economist at GlobalData TS Lombard, told Al Jazeera. “We do think it’ll revert back to $80 in due course, but the ball is to some degree in Iran’s court,” she said, adding that because Iran needs oil revenue, the price hikes are expected to be time-limited.

The International Energy Agency agreed on Wednesday to release 400 million barrels from the emergency reserves of several member states but it is not yet clear what impact that will have, nor how quickly this quantity of oil can be released.

Tehran has also been accused of directly attacking oil facilities in neighbouring countries this week. Iraq shut all its oil port operations on Thursday after explosive-laden Iranian “drone” boats appeared to have attacked two fuel tankers in Iraqi waters, setting them ablaze and killing one crew member.

A drone was filmed striking Oman’s Salalah oil port on Wednesday, although Tehran has denied involvement.

What are Iranian officials saying about ending the war?

There has been conflicting messaging from the Iranian leadership.

Iran’s elite army unit and parallel armed force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), continues to show defiance, issuing threats and launching attacks on Israel and US military assets and infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf countries.

However, the political leadership has appeared more inclined towards diplomacy, analysts say. On Wednesday, President Pezeshkian said that ending the war would take the US and Israel recognising Iran’s rights, paying Iran reparations – although it’s unclear how much is being asked for – and providing strong guarantees that a future war will not be waged.

In a video recording last week, he also apologised to neighbouring countries for the strikes and promised that Iran would stop hitting its neighbours as long as they do not allow the US to launch attacks from their territory.

“I personally apologise to the neighbouring countries that were affected by Iran’s actions,” the president said, adding that Tehran was not looking for confrontations with its neighbours.

However, it is not known how much sway the political leadership has over the IRGC. Hours after the president’s apology last week, air defence sirens went off in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain, as strikes continued on the Gulf.

So, what is Iran’s actual position?

“Iran wants to go to the end to make sure that the United States and Israel never attack Iran again … so this has to be the final battle,” Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas explained.

Indeed, the IRGC sees this as an existential war, but the timing of Pezeshkian’s statement about ending the conflict also shows Tehran is pressured economically, politically and militarily, Zeidon Alkinani of Qatar’s Georgetown University told Al Jazeera.

“These differences and divisions [between IRGC and political leaders] always existed even prior to this war but we may notice it now more, given the fact that the IRGC believes that it has the right to take the front seat in leading this regional war, which is why a lot of the statements and positions are contradicting with the official ones from Pezeshkian,” he said.

The IRGC reports directly to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and not to the country’s political leadership. That council is led by Ali Larijani, a top politician and close aide to the late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who analysts describe as a “hardliner”.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Larijani responded to threats from Trump about attacks on the Strait of Hormuz, saying: “Iranian people do not fear your hollow threats; for those greater than you have failed to erase it … So beware lest you be the ones to vanish.”

The newly elected supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was once in the IRGC and was put forward by the unit as the next ayatollah after his father was killed on the first day of the war, analysts say. He is thus not expected to follow the reformist, diplomatic ideals of President Pezeshkian and other political leaders which his father managed to marry with the IRGC militarised stance, they say.

What do the US and Israel say about ending the war?

There have also been conflicting messages from the Trump administration and Israel regarding when the war mission on Iran, codenamed Operation Epic Fury, is likely to end.

Trump told US publication Axios on Wednesday that the war on Iran would end “soon” because there’s “practically nothing left to target”.

“Anytime I want it to end, it will end,” he added. He had said earlier on Monday that “we’re way ahead of our schedule” and that the US had achieved its goals, even as speculation mounts about a possible US ground mission.

On the other hand, Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Wednesday that the war would go on “without any time limit, for as long as necessary, until we achieve all the objectives and decisively win the campaign”.

Analysts say Trump’s stance that the conflict will be quick reflects increasing pressure on his administration ahead of upcoming mid-term elections in November.

Trump’s advisers privately told him this week to find a quick end to the war and avoid political backlash, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal. That came as polls from Quinnipiac University and The Washington Post suggested that most Americans are opposed to the war in Iran.

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to lower prices, and inflation had stabilised at 2.4 percent ahead of the war, according to government data released on Wednesday. Analysts speculate the conflict will likely push it back up.

The US spent more than $11.3bn in the first six days of the war, Pentagon officials told lawmakers in a classified briefing on Tuesday, Reuters reported this week – nearly $2bn a day.

The Washington-based think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), estimated that the war cost Washington $3.7bn in its first 100 hours alone, or nearly $900m a day, largely due to its expenditure on costly munitions.

“It’s quite ironic that [Trump] chose a war that would make affordability worse, not better,” Rebecca Christie, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank, told Al Jazeera’s Counting the Cost.

“Every time the US loses even one object, air defence or a plane or something like that, that represents an awful lot of money that could have been used on some of these issues that have an impact on people’s day-to-day lives in the United States.”

Disneyland Resort President Thomas Mazloum has been named chairman of Walt Disney Co.’s experiences division, the company said Tuesday.

Mazloum succeeds soon-to-be Disney Chief Executive Josh D’Amaro as the head of the Mouse House’s vital parks portfolio, which has become the economic engine for the Burbank media and entertainment giant. His purview includes Disney’s theme parks, famed Imagineering division, merchandise, cruise line, as well as the Aulani Resort and Spa in Hawaii.

Jill Estorino will become the head of Disneyland Resort in Anaheim. She previously served as president and managing director of Disney Parks International and oversaw the company’s theme parks and resorts in Europe and Asia.

Estorino and Mazloum will assume their new roles on March 18, the same day as D’Amaro and incoming Disney President and Chief Creative Officer Dana Walden.

“Thomas Mazloum is an exceptional leader with a genuine appreciation for our cast members and a proven track record of delivering growth,” D’Amaro said in a statement. “His focus on service excellence, broad international leadership and strong connection to the creativity that brings our stories to life make him the right leader to guide Disney Experiences into its next chapter.”

Mazloum had been about a year into his tenure at Disneyland. Prior to that, he was head of Disney Signature Experiences, which includes the cruise line. He was trained in hospitality in Europe.

In his time at Disneyland, Mazloum oversaw the park’s 70th anniversary celebration and recently pledged to eliminate time limitations for park-hopping, which are designed to manage foot traffic at Disneyland and California Adventure.

Mazloum will now oversee a 10-year, $60-billion investment plan for Disney’s overall experiences business, which includes new themed lands in Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World. At Disneyland, that expansion could result in at least $1.9 billion of development.

The size of that investment indicates how important the parks are to Disney’s bottom line. Last year, the experiences business brought in nearly 57% of the company’s operating income. Maintaining that momentum, as well as fending off competitors such as Universal Studios, is key to Disney’s continued growth.

In his new role, Mazloum will have to keep an eye on “international visitation headwinds” at its U.S.-based parks, which the company has said will likely factor into its earnings for the fiscal second quarter. At Disneyland Resort, that dip was mitigated by the park’s high percentage of California-based visitors.

Times staff writer Todd Martens contributed to this report.

Antonio Costa says Russia benefits from soaring global energy prices and attention being diverted from war in Ukraine.

European Council President Antonio Costa has said Russia is the only country benefitting from the US-Israeli war on Iran, as global energy prices soar and attention from Moscow’s four-year conflict with Ukraine is diverted.

Now in its 11th day, the war has spiralled rapidly throughout the region as Iranian forces hit back at US and Israeli targets, as well as facilities in the Gulf. It has also slowed oil and natural gas flows through the strategic Strait of Hormuz to a near standstill, pushing fuel prices upwards and threatening far-reaching impacts on a number of industries.

“So far, there is only one winner in this war – Russia,” Costa said in a speech to European Union ambassadors in Brussels on Tuesday.

“It gains ‌new resources to finance its war against Ukraine as energy prices rise. It profits from the diversion of military capabilities that could otherwise have been sent to support Ukraine. And it benefits from reduced ⁠attention to the Ukrainian front ⁠as the conflict in the Middle East takes centre stage.”

Costa stressed the need for the EU to protect ⁠the international rules-based order, which he said was now being challenged ⁠by the United States, ⁠and for all parties in the Middle East to return to the negotiating table.

“Freedom and human rights cannot ‌be achieved through bombs. Only international law upholds them,” he said. “We must avoid further escalation. ‌Such ‌a path threatens the Middle East, Europe, and beyond.”

The US and Israeli attack on Iran triggered the biggest spike in oil prices on Monday since the turmoil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Costa’s comments came as the Kremlin said all parties wanted to continue US-mediated Russia-Ukraine peace talks, but that no date or venue had been agreed yet for the next round.

Russia and Ukraine held three rounds of talks in Turkiye last year and have conducted several more US-mediated sessions in Abu Dhabi and Geneva this year. But they remain far apart on key issues, especially on Russia’s demand for Ukraine to cede control of the whole of its eastern Donetsk region.

On Monday, US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, held their first phone call of the year, during which they discussed the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

The Kremlin said the possibility of lifting US sanctions on Russian oil had not been discussed in any detail with Washington, but that US actions were aimed at stabilising global energy markets.

Following this call, Putin said Russia, the world’s second-largest oil exporter and holder of the biggest natural gas reserves, was ready to work again with European customers if they wanted to return to long-term cooperation.

Before the Ukraine war, Europe was buying more than 40 percent of its gas from Russia. By 2025, combined sales of pipeline gas and LNG from Russia accounted for only 13 percent of total EU imports.

Also on Monday, Trump said his administration would lift some sanctions on oil-producing countries to keep energy prices down – though he did not say which ones.

Washington currently maintains sanctions on the oil sectors of Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

The Reuters news agency, citing multiple unnamed sources, reported that Trump was considering easing sanctions on Russia as part of his plans to keep oil prices down.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week announced a 30-day waiver on sanctions on Russian oil sales to India to help it cope with the cuts to Middle East supply.

WASHINGTON — Alexander Butterfield, the White House aide who inadvertently hastened Richard Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate scandal when he revealed that the president had bugged the Oval Office and Cabinet Room and routinely recorded his conversations, has died. He was 99.

His death was confirmed to the Associated Press by his wife, Kim, and John Dean, who served as White House counsel to Nixon during the Watergate scandal and went on to, along with Butterfield, help expose the wrongdoing.

“He had the heavy responsibility of revealing something he was sworn to secrecy on, which is the installation of the Nixon taping system,” Dean said. “He stood up and told the truth.”

As a deputy assistant to the president, Butterfield oversaw the taping system connected to voice-activated listening devices that had been secretly placed in four locations, including Nixon’s office in the Executive Office Building and the presidential retreat at Camp David.

Butterfield later said that, besides himself and the president, he believed that only White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, a Haldeman assistant and a handful of Secret Service agents knew about the taping system.

“Everything was taped … as long as the president was in attendance,” Butterfield told Watergate investigators when testifying under oath during a preliminary interview.

The tapes would expose Nixon’s role in the cover-up that followed the burglary in 1972 at the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building. To avoid impeachment by the House, Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974, less than a month after the Supreme Court had ordered him to surrender the relevant tapes to the Watergate special prosecutor.

Butterfield believed he’d had a hand in the president’s fate. “I didn’t like to be the cause of that, but I felt that I was, in a lot of ways,” he said in a 2008 oral history for the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.

Butterfield, a college friend of Haldeman’s at UCLA who had contacted him to ask about opportunities in the new Nixon administration, served as a deputy assistant to Nixon from 1969 to 1973. In that capacity, he worked under Haldeman and, among other duties, was secretary to the Cabinet and helped oversee White House operations.

The Air Force veteran had left the White House to become administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration when Senate committee staffers privately questioned him on July 13, 1973, during their investigation of the Watergate break-in. A routine question about the possibility of a taping system had been prompted by former White House counsel John Dean’s testimony that he believed a conversation he had had with Nixon may have been recorded.

When Butterfield acknowledged that a taping system indeed existed, he was brought before a public hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. The public revelation on July 16, 1973, of a taping system designed to record all the president’s conversations stunned Nixon friends and foes alike. The tapes promised Watergate investigators a rich vein of evidence in their quest to determine what Nixon and others knew about the break-in — a great deal, as it turned out.

Efforts by investigators to gain access to the tapes sparked a yearlong legal battle that was resolved in July 1974 when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to give them up.

The thousands of hours of tapes made public over the years — they are now controlled by the National Archives — provide a unique, if often unflattering, view of Nixon. His words exposed a bad temper, vulgar language, bigoted racial and religious views, and unvarnished opinions about national and international figures.

“I just thought, ‘When they hear those tapes …’ I mean, I knew what was on these tapes … they’re dynamite,” Butterfield told the Nixon Library. “I guess I didn’t foresee that the president might be put out of office or impeached, but I thought it would be a perilous few years for him. I guess I couldn’t conceive of [Nixon] being forced out of office. It had never happened before.”

Butterfield later said he believed that Nixon’s successor, President Ford, fired him as FAA administrator in 1975 as part of an agreement worked out between the Nixon and Ford staff members. He said he had heard from White House friends that he had been targeted shortly after his testimony to the Senate committee.

After leaving the FAA, Butterfield worked as a business executive in California. He earned a master’s degree from UC San Diego in 1994.

Alexander Porter Butterfield was born on April 6, 1926, in Pensacola, Fla.

He left UCLA to join the Navy and later earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Maryland in 1956 and a master’s degree from George Washington University in 1967.

In 1948, he joined the Air Force and served as an instructor at a base near Las Vegas during the Korean War and later served in Germany. In Washington, he was a military assistant to the special assistant of the Defense secretary in 1965 and 1966 and later served as senior military representative of the U.S. and representative for the commander in chief, Pacific Forces, Australia. He retired at the rank of colonel after 20 years in the Air Force.

Butterfield was unsparing in his criticism of the former president in later years. Although he commended Nixon’s achievements in foreign affairs, he considered his former boss “not an honest man” and “a crook” and believed that Nixon knew about the Watergate break-in before it occurred and was the architect of the ensuing cover-up.

Butterfield found himself “cheering … just cheering” the day Nixon resigned, he told the Nixon Library, because “justice had prevailed.”

“I didn’t think that it would for a while,” he said. “This guy was the ringleader.”

Daniel and Tackett write for the Associated Press. Daniel, the primary writer of this obituary, retired from the Associated Press in 2023.

One of the fundamental issues that a Constitution must regulate is what happens when the head of State is absent. The most important scenario is how to proceed when the president’s absence is absolute, that is, when it is known that he will no longer serve as president permanently.

So what should happen in Venezuela when the president of the republic is absent?

The two scenarios of presidential absence: Under the 1999 Constitution, there are two scenarios of presidential absence: temporary absence and absolute absence. The Constitution implicitly categorizes all scenarios of absence into one of these two: either the president is temporarily absent, or the president is absolutely absent. The Constitution assigns different consequences to each scenario.

Constitutional rules regarding temporary absence: If the absence is temporary, the vice president fills the vacancy for a period of 90 days, which may be extended by the National Assembly for up to another 90 days. If the temporary absence extends beyond 90 days, the National Assembly may, by a majority vote, consider the absence to be permanent (Article 234). After these 90 or 180 days have elapsed, depending on whether or not the period is extended, the absence must necessarily be considered permanent. Consequently, in accordance with Article 233 of the Constitution, elections must be held within 30 days of the permanent absence.

Constitutional rules regarding permanent absence

If the absence is permanent and occurs within the first four years of the constitutional term, elections must be held within 30 days of the permanent absence (Article 233). The Constitution lists, in a non-exhaustive manner, the circumstances of absolute absence (that is, there may be other reasons, such as the president’s removal and imprisonment abroad): death, resignation, or removal from office decreed by a TSJ ruling; permanent physical or mental incapacity certified by a medical board appointed by the TSJ and approved by the National Assembly; abandonment of office, declared as such by the National Assembly; and referendum recall of the president.

The Constitution distinguishes how to proceed in the event of the president’s absolute absence depending on the time elapsed since the beginning of the presidential term.

Under the 1999 Constitution, there is no constitutional provision that supports Maduro’s forced absence. His absence is either temporary, to which the rules of temporary absence must be applied, or permanent, to which the Constitution also says what to do.

When the president-elect becomes absolutely absent before taking office, a new universal, direct, and secret election will be held within the following 30 consecutive days. While the new president is being elected and takes office, the president of the National Assembly will assume the presidency (this was the rule used analogously to support then-Speaker Juan Guaidó as interim president in 2019).

If the president’s permanent absence occurs during the first four years of the constitutional term, a new universal, direct, and secret election will be held within the following 30 consecutive days. While the new president is being elected and takes office, the executive vice president will assume the presidency. In the aforementioned cases, the new president will complete the corresponding constitutional term. If the permanent absence occurs during the last two years of the constitutional term, the executive vice president will assume the presidency until the end of that term.

Maduro’s absence occurred within the first four years of the presidential term.

What the Supreme Tribunal of Justice has said

What has been the TSJ’s position on Maduro’s absence and the constitutional consequences of that absence? First, it issued a ruling on January 3rd ordering that Delcy Rodríguez, as executive vice president, assumes and exercises, in an “acting” capacity, all the powers, duties, and faculties inherent to the office of president.

It characterized Maduro’s absence as “forced.” However, it did not specify whether this absence is temporary or permanent.

Therefore, the Constitutional Chamber considers that Maduro is in a forced absence, which must be filled by Delcy Rodríguez.

Under the 1999 Constitution, there is no constitutional provision that supports Maduro’s forced absence. His absence is either temporary, to which the rules of temporary absence must be applied, or permanent, to which the Constitution also says what to do. There’s no situation such as “forced absence”. That “forced absence” of Maduro, from which the “interim” presidency of Delcy Rodríguez derivates, is based only on the sentence issued by the Constitutional Court on January 3.

Furthermore, Rodríguez is simultaneously holding the acting presidency (and therefore cannot be considered executive vice president) and the Ministry of Hydrocarbons. In Venezuela, ministers are appointed by the president. Therefore, the only person who could remove Rodríguez as minister is Rodríguez as President. A constitutional absurdity.

If the extension is declared, it will expire on July 3. From that day, 30 days must elapse within which the presidential election must be held.

There’s an additional peculiarity: in Official Gazette No. 6,963 of January 14, a ruling was announced by which the Constitutional Chamber supposedly had the authority to “determine the applicable legal framework to guarantee the continuity of the State, the administration of government, and the defense of sovereignty in the event of the forced absence of the President of the Republic.” That is, the Constitutional Chamber was or is going to issue a posterior sentence to define the constitutional route after Maduro’s absence.

However, at the time of writing, this ruling has not been published on the Supreme Court’s website. This is an anomaly, since the general rule is that when a ruling is published in the Official Gazette, it has already been published on the Supreme Court’s website several days prior. Something happened within the regime that led its leaders to decide it would be better not to publish such a sentence.

We can assume that the acting president and the Supreme Tribunal of Justice consider Maduro’s absence to be temporary. Under that scenario, according to the Constitution, on April 3, 2026, the National Assembly could extend Delcy Rodríguez’s acting presidency for another 90 days.

If it does not, the Constitution requires us to assume that Maduro is permanently absent, and elections must be held within the following 30 days.

If the extension is declared, it will expire on July 3. From that day, 30 days must elapse within which the presidential election must be held.

Any other solution has no basis in the 1999 Constitution.

And that is something that should be discussed.

The president of the United Arab Emirates spoke for the first time on the widening war in the Middle East as Iran continues to strike Gulf countries hosting US military assets with drones and missiles.

“The UAE has thick skin and bitter flesh – we are no easy prey,” said Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in comments aired by Abu Dhabi TV on Saturday as he visited wounded patients in a hospital.

He added the UAE is in “a period of war” but would “emerge stronger”.

In a social media post, Sheikh Mohamed said the UAE, which has seen attacks affecting hubs such as airports, tourist attractions, and the US consulate in Dubai, is prepared to confront “threats” against the “security and the protection of all citizens”.

One driver was killed when debris from an intercepted projectile slammed into his vehicle, Dubai’s Media Office said, describing the victim as Asian but providing no further details.

Sheikh Mohamed’s comments were aired as the region entered a second week of war sparked by a major US-Israeli attack on Iran.

Earlier, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian offered an apology to neighbouring nations for launching strikes on their countries housing US military bases. His comments were swiftly contradicted by Iranian judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, also a member of the interim leadership council.

“Evidence from Iran’s armed forces shows that the geography of some countries in the region is openly and covertly at the disposal of the enemy,” he said. “The heavy attacks on these targets will continue.”

Pezeshkian himself rolled back on his remarks that Gulf countries would not be targeted unless attacks originated from their territories, caveating that while his country emphasised “the preservation and continuation of friendly relations,” Iran still has an “inherent right” to defend itself against US-Israeli aggression.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also clarified the leader’s comments on X, saying, “President Pezeshkian expressed openness to de-escalation within our region – provided that our neighbours’ airspace, territory, and waters are not used to attack the Iranian people.”

Iran retaliates after attack on water supplies

All the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman – have been targeted because of the presence of US assets within and around their borders.

In the Gulf, the deadly attacks have caused major disruption to flights, closure of airspace, and heavy knock-on impacts on oil-and-gas production reverberating across the world.

On Saturday, Iranian state media reported the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps targeted US forces at Bahrain’s Jufair airbase in retaliation for an attack on a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island.

Araghchi called the US attack on the plant a “dangerous move with grave consequences”, accusing the US of committing a “blatant and desperate crime”, which affected the water supply to 30 villages.

Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, later said the attack was carried out with support from one of the airbases in a southern neighbouring country, stressing nations will not enjoy peace as long as the US has bases in the region.

Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser with the Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera that attacks on water supplies could bring “greater chaos” to the Gulf.

“About 95 percent of all water in the Gulf comes from desalination,” he said. “If Iran wants to target desalination and water installation plants, they can bring the Gulf to a halt.”

Other attacks on Gulf

The UAE, a US ally and home to US military installations, has been the most heavily targeted nation in the Gulf during the war.

The Emirati Ministry of Defence said on Saturday it was targeted with 16 ballistic missiles and more than 120 drones.

Hours after Pezeshkian’s apology, the IRGC said their drones struck a US air combat centre at al-Dhafra airbase near Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE.

Later, an unidentified object was intercepted near Dubai airport, the world’s busiest for international traffic, forcing it to briefly suspend operations.

Iranian attacks also hit Abu Dhabi airport, the upmarket Palm Jumeirah development, and the Burj Al Arab luxury hotel over the past week, while drone debris caused a fire at the US consulate in Dubai.

Also on Saturday, Qatar’s armed forces intercepted a missile attack, according to the Ministry of Defence. No immediate details were released about possible damage or casualties.

In Saudi Arabia, the defence ministry said a ballistic missile landed in an uninhabited area after being launched towards Prince Sultan Air Base, southeast of Riyadh, which hosts US troops.

Kuwait also reported intercepting a drone while the country’s national oil company announced a “precautionary” cut to its production of crude because of Iranian attacks and threats to the Strait of Hormuz, a key transit point for Gulf hydrocarbons.

Iran to select new supreme leader

Posting on social media on Saturday, US President Donald Trump warned his country would hit Iran “very hard” and threatened to expand strikes to include new targets.

Speaking at an event hosting Latin American leaders in Miami, Florida, Trump said on Saturday his country’s forces sank 42 Iranian navy ships in three days.

Israel launched what its military described as a new wave of strikes on Tehran and Isfahan. The military said on Saturday that more than 80 fighter jets completed a wave of strikes on Iranian army sites, missile launchers and other targets.

In a statement, the army said targets hit in Iran included missile storage sites, ballistic missile launchers and military facilities linked to Iran’s security forces.

Among the attacks, it said it struck 16 aircraft at Tehran’s Mehrabad airport, which belonged to the Quds Force branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard overseeing its foreign operations.

The Israeli military reported missiles were fired from ‌Iran at Israel on eight different occasions on Saturday, setting off air raid sirens in parts of the country and actioning air defences.

Iranian state media reported Saturday that the IRGC hit a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker in Hormuz.

Iran’s Assembly of Experts will be meeting in the next 24 hours to choose a new supreme leader, according to assembly member Ayatollah Mozafari.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, has rejected Trump’s demands to have a say in selecting Iran’s new supreme leader.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has apologised for attacking neighbouring countries, in a pre-recorded address released on state television. Within minutes of the statement’s release, an explosion was heard over Doha, as attacks on Gulf nations continue.

The blanket ban imposed on Russian and Belarusian athletes in 2022 was reduced to a partial ban in 2023, allowing athletes from the two nations to compete as neutrals at the 2024 Paris Paralympics.

In September 2025, the IPC lifted that ban entirely but the four individual governing bodies in charge of the six sports contested at the Winter Paralympics decided to keep their bans in place.

In December, Russia and Belarus won an appeal against FIS – the governing body for skiing and snowboarding – at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), permitting their athletes in those sports to compete and accumulate ranking points.

As a result, 10 athletes were then awarded bipartite commission invitations to compete at the Winter Paralympics.

Bipartite commission invites are granted to individual athletes, rather than their international federation, and allow the participation of top athletes “who may not have had the opportunity to qualify through other methods due to extraordinary circumstances”, among other factors.

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky called the decision “awful” while the country’s sports minister Matvii Bidnyi said it was “both disappointing and outrageous”.

“The general assembly lifted the suspension in September so we need to respect the democracy of our movement. The majority voted that way, so we need to implement their decision,” said Parsons.

“But I fully understand the disappointment, I understand the different opinions, and especially [those] coming from Ukraine.”

Asked what he would say to Ukrainian athletes, he said: “My message to them is that the best way to show the strength of Ukraine is on the field of play, by winning medals and by making sure their national anthem is played as many times as possible on Italian soil.”

In addition to Ukraine, teams from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are boycotting Friday’s opening ceremony in Verona in protest against the decision.

Officials from other nations, including the British government, will not attend for the same reason.

The Great Britain team will also not go to the Verona ceremony, but for logistical reasons – a decision that was made some time ago.

Many of the 25-strong British squad – including flagbearers Menna Fitzpatrick and Scott Meenagh – are in competitive action on Saturday morning, several hours’ drive from Verona.

Athletes from Belarus are expected to be in attendance at the opening ceremony, but at the time of BBC Sport’s interview with Parsons, no Russians were due to attend.

“Different countries, National Paralympic Committees, governments, athletes, they have been able to express their views freely, and that’s what we stand for as a democratic organisation,” said Parsons.

“We would like the focus to be more on sport rather than politics and this is what we are trying to do.”

US President Donald Trump has said he “does not care” if Iran take part in this summer’s 2026 World Cup.

Trump’s comments come amid US and Israeli strikes on Iran, which has responded by launching attacks on US-allied states in the Gulf in an escalating conflict.

The US is co-hosting the World Cup which takes place between 11 June and 19 July, along with Canada and Mexico.

“I really don’t care,” Trump told Politico, external about Iran playing in the tournament.

“I think Iran is a very badly defeated country. They’re running on fumes.”

BBC Sport has approached Fifa for comment.

Former US defense official Michael Mulroy breaks down the US justification for striking Iran, while some US officials say there were no immediate threats.

BERKELEY — University of California President James B. Milliken, in his first extensive interview since taking the helm of the nation’s premier public higher education system, defended UC’s diplomatic approach to President Trump’s fusillade of actions against the institution — contrasting it with the more aggressive fight Harvard is waging with the government.

UC has not repeatedly sued the federal government or publicly criticized Trump, while Harvard battles the administration in and outside court amid billions in White House funding freezes.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

“We could have said, ‘We’re going to sue tomorrow.’ We saw that movie with Harvard,” Milliken said of his first seven months on the job dominated by federal attacks. “Harvard is still in negotiations to settle the federal government’s actions, but they have had a series of devastating enforcement actions taken … Given our responsibility to the university and to the state of California, the better course for us was to engage.”

Yet days after the interview, the U.S. Department of Justice leveled another strike against UC in a lawsuit alleging UCLA “routinely ignored” and “failed to report” employee complaints of antisemitism since 2023.

In a statement after the interview, Milliken said UC has already committed to combating anti-Jewish hatred without court interference.

“Antisemitism has no place at UC and we have taken important actions to protect our Jewish students, faculty and staff … We will always have work to do, and our commitment to our community is unwavering,” the statement said. “In light of this — and our oft-cited willingness to work with the government in good faith — the new lawsuit is unfortunate and, in our view, unnecessary.”

In a wide-ranging interview at UC Berkeley’s Grimes Engineering Center, Milliken, 68, offered his assessment of Trump’s actions to overhaul higher education and declined to say whether UC would pay an amount smaller than the $1.2-billion proposed fine over UCLA’s alleged campus antisemitism.

On federal talks, Milliken said UC would “never compromise” on its independence, governance, values and academic freedom.

James B. Milliken.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

He touted UC’s accomplishments despite the challenges: Four faculty members received Nobel prizes last year — the largest ever number from one institution — and UC secured more patents for inventions last year than any university in the world.

Aside from Trump, UC faces internal pressures: multiple campuses, including UCLA, are in deficit. Labor unions are demanding better job conditions. Members of the UAW 4811 academic workers union have authorized a potential strike.

Milliken spoke in favor of diversity, celebrated immigrants and said he wanted to expand student access to the university. He said UC should lead on artificial intelligence.

Milliken started in August after more than six years as chancellor of the University of Texas system. He previously held top roles at the City University of New York, the University of Nebraska and the University of North Carolina. A news and history buff and former Wall Street lawyer who prefers reading paper over pixels, he often cites his study of “The Gold and the Blue,” a two-volume chronicle of UC’s ascent in the 1950s and struggles during the political turmoil of 1960s written by former UC Berkeley Chancellor turned UC President Clark Kerr.

He said his job is “to do everything we can to demonstrate the value that’s delivered by these amazing places … I don’t want to underestimate the difficulty in the current political environment,” but, he added, universities have been a national boon “over generations.”

Trump and higher education

Adjusting to the possibility of further retrenchment of Washington’s university research funding is among Milliken’s top concerns.

UC relies on $17.5 billion annually in federal monies, including research grants, Pell grants and hospital payments for Medicare and Medicaid. Last year, the government suspended $584 million in UCLA federal medical, science and energy research grants before a UC faculty-led lawsuit restored the money. But roughly $170 million in grants is still on hold systemwide.

Another independent faculty- and union-led federal suit has temporarily halted the $1.2-billion UCLA settlement demand seeking rightward ideological change on campus. But UC remains open to talks to quash federal probes on its own terms.

James B. Milliken.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Milliken was vague on the status of negotiations and whether UC would pay a fine — such as the $200 million Columbia University signed off on last year — to settle federal investigations.

“It would be foolhardy of me to speculate on what ultimately might be proposed to the University of California or what we might find acceptable,” he said.

He declined to specify how he would uphold his promises to protect UC’s independence, governance, values and academic freedom.

“I’m not going to go into detail on those because it gets pretty close to the line of what could be a discussion with the federal government,” Milliken said.

Educational access

Milliken was more verbose on the role of higher education and his big-picture visions for UC.

College “helps make sure that we have an educated citizenry that is prepared to actively participate in a democracy that understands our civic traditions, that understands our political system, that understands how our economic system works,” Milliken said.

“Talent is universal,” he said, “but opportunity often isn’t.” Universities “match this talent with the opportunity.”

But federal moves have threatened to change access to education. The Trump administration has sued California’s public universities and community colleges for allowing undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition. A Trump travel ban on dozens of countries has stalled student and faculty applications from Asian, African and South American nations, while a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign hires could hurt university and hospital recruitment.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Milliken pledged to protect immigrants.

“I think we need to take a step back and recognize how fundamental the country’s embrace of people from around the world has been,” Milliken said. “It has been an enormous boon in terms of talent and culture and the kinds of things that make this country what it is today. I know people are worried, they’re anxious. In some cases, they’re afraid … One of the things that our university presidents and chancellors think about every day is keeping these communities safe.”

Lifelong learning

UC — home to several of the most selective and prestigious campuses in the nation — continues to grow in size and popularity. The system set a record enrollment of about 301,000 students in 2025. And 252,000 high school and transfer students have submitted applications for the coming fall, another record high. Yet, vast numbers of academically qualified students do not get in, especially to UCLA and UC Berkeley.

Campuses, including UCLA, have upped professional certificate programs and extension school offerings in recent years. Milliken said universities should further embrace learning programs outside of the undergraduate experience. UCLA is developing a plan called “UCLA for Life” to reimagine the Westwood campus’ role for professionals.

“A four-year baccalaureate experience is not enough to prepare you for 40 years or 50 years of a career. You’re going to need to retool, going to need to re-skill. And I look at universities. Students ought to turn to their alma maters. There’s a relationship that you ought to have for life,” Milliken said.

The university’s future and evolution

Milliken wants UC to take on a lead role in AI.

“The continued adaptation of AI is inevitable, and there are good things and not so good things about that. But UC is the most important, impactful university in the world, and it should not be following others in developing what is the ethical and responsible,” Milliken said. “… We’re in a place where I think leadership, whether we wanted it or not, is a responsibility.”

• Share via Close extra sharing options

More Californians should take stock of UC’s role outside of undergraduate education, he said.

“Two-thirds of our students are undergraduates. It’s a hugely important thing. But so is the research we do. So is the healthcare that we do across the state. So is the work we do at national laboratories which support incredible innovation and national security,” he said.

Milliken said he hoped the cuts to university research were a short-term “aberration.”

New research funding state bond bill

UC has put its weight behind a $23-billion bond proposal that will be on the November ballot to create a California Foundation for Science and Health Research, which would fund university and private institutions in ways similar to the National Institutes of Health.

If voters pass it, Milliken said the measure would “go an enormous way” toward making up for federal losses but that it was “impossible to speculate” on the extent as federal research funding, priorities and procedures fluctuate.

“I hope we never get to the question of whether California can replace federal funding,” he said. “Would I like to see it supplement, ensure that disruptions — even if shorter term — don’t derail the important science that’s going on here and the preparation of the next generation of scientists? Yes, I think that’s an incredibly worthwhile endeavor for the state.”

More from The Times’ interview with Milliken:

• Share via Close extra sharing options

As a Clinton supporter, I am very disappointed that the President fired Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders for speaking on masturbation (Dec. 10), while Ronald Reagan let Surgeon General C. Everett Koop speak his mind on AIDS, birth control and condom use–all positions with which Reagan disagreed–for both of the former President’s terms. Perhaps Reagan recognized that doctors speak of things, in clear, uncensored language, in a way that politicians cannot.

I have never seen such sore winners as the Republicans are this year. Their call for Elders’ head heralds some very dark days to come. Clinton needs to learn a lesson from this, a lesson he seems loath to learn: You cannot appease your enemies by sacrificing your friends. You will lose your friends and your enemies will call you a coward.

DAVID VAN CHANEY, West Hollywood

*

It is good to see Clinton moving to the right. He may not have, as yet, fully embraced “Three strikes and you’re out” but at least “Three faux pas and you’re out” is a start.

WARREN M. LENT, Los Angeles

*

“She Pulled No Punches” (editorial, Dec. 10) is surprisingly acute and on target, both as to the rationale for Elders’ dismissal as surgeon general and as to the lamentable restraint on public discourse in our country–suffered by those who do their homework well and let us know what they think.

I think it cheeky of you to offer kind words at all for one who frequently shoots from the lip. She is the Jesse Helms of the left, though with far kinder heart and broader perspective. I will miss her in the way one misses sitting on the edge of the chair when someone rises to speak, half-afraid yet hoping some truth will out.

On the masturbation comment that got her canned, the practice needs no encouragement from the classroom. Bravo, Dr. Elders, and keep talking straight. You are in the grand tradition of free speech.

VERNON STORY, Community United Methodist Church, Desert Hot Springs

*

Being outspoken is not a virtue worth defending when what you have to say is just plain dumb. Which is why I can’t believe you would write an editorial supporting Elders. This woman has embarrassed herself virtually every time she has opened her inarticulate mouth. Have you not been listening?

Whatever has kept Clinton from firing her before this is a mystery. The number of mind-numbing statements made by this surgeon general over the last two years is far too extensive to list here but to me, her most classic remark had to do with violence in America: “We need safer weapons and safer bullets,” said she. No further comment.

JUDIE GAUGENMAIER, Studio City

*

It fascinates me that we will accept political babble and allow ourselves to go into denial, and when we are confronted with the truth as given to us by Elders we rebuke the truth and the messenger.

BEN BOELMAN, Placentia

*

Dr. Jack Kevorkian would have been a better choice for surgeon general than Elders.

DWIGHT M. CATES, Ventura