questions

HUNDREDS of you, Sun Readers, have reached out to us about your holidays concerns because of the ongoing Iran crisis.

So our Travel Expert – Head of Travel, Lisa Minot – is answering them all for you.

From whether Greece is safe to whether you can cancel your holiday for a refund, here is everything you need to know.

We are going to Cyprus in June and the balance is due by March 17, should we still pay it?

Although many Sun readers are concerned about their holidays to Cyprus following on from the attack on the RAF airbase on the island and the cancellation of flights from British Airways, easyJet and TUI, currently the UK Foreign Office has not issued any warnings about travel to the island.

Unlike the UAE, where the current advises against all but essential travel, Cyprus remains on the safe to travel list.

If you do not pay the balance of your holiday, you face losing the money you have paid to your travel provider so far.

Read more on travel advice

GROUNDED

More flights cancelled with thousands still stranded abroad in fourth day of chaos

ESCAPE FROM WARZONE

Dubai Brits face mission to get from hols hotspot to evacuation flights

If the advice were to change, your travel company would have to offer you the chance to amend your travel to a different date or offer you a full refund.

We have had lots of questions about holidays to Cyprus – both Larnaca and Paphos, later in June, July and September and the advice really remains the same.

Unless you have paid a minimal deposit, you should continue to make payments. If you cancel now you could lose money – and discover that holidays are significantly more expensive when you look to book again.

What is important is to make sure you have bought good travel insurance NOW to cover you in the run up to your holiday dates. A lot can happen in the coming months.

Take the time to enquire about what you would be covered for in terms of delays and cancellations as these can vary from policy to policy.

Will this affect holidays in Egypt? We’re due to fly there in May for our honeymoon

While it is very understandable that travellers would be a little nervous of the proximity of Egypt to the current crisis, the popular Egyptian Red Sea resorts of Sharm El Sheikh, Hurgahda and Marsa Alam as well as the majority of Egypt including ancient cities of Cairo and Luxor are NOT under any Foreign Office travel ban.

While no one can predict what is going to happen in the region, it is currently considered safe to travel to these destinations and your tour operator or airline is under no obligation to refund you if you chose not to travel. 

Hurghada and Marsa Alam are hundreds of miles away from the conflict zone and holidays there should not be impacted at all.

I had tipped Egypt as one of the stand-out destinations for British travellers to enjoy 5* luxury at great value prices this year.

Increased flights from the UK and an ever greater number of new luxury resorts mean it still offers guaranteed sunshine for all budgets.

I travelled to Luxor, Hurghada and Marsa Alam in February and could not have felt safer with the Egyptians taking security very seriously.

Is Greece safe to travel, being so close to Turkey?

Yes Greece is safe to travel to – and is not under any UK Foreign Office travel warnings.

The main popular tourist resorts in both Greece and Turkey are many thousands of miles from the current problems in the Middle East.

If you choose to cancel a holiday you have already made payments on you will NOT get your money back as your travel company is under no legal obligation to refund you.

A refund is only triggered if the Foreign Office advises against all travel or all but essential travel.

Again, ensuring you have fully comprehensive travel insurance from the moment you make your booking is really important to give you added protection in the run up to your trip. 

We’ve had questions from Sun readers looking at trips to Corfu and Rhodes this summer – they should be reassured that the chance of holidays to these islands being impacted, while not impossible, is extremely unlikely.

Will travel disruption escalate to the Canary Islands travel from the UK?

While nothing can be guaranteed in these extraordinary times, there is nothing whatsoever to lead me to think that the current crisis will have any impact at all on holidays to the Canary Islands from the UK.

It is understandable that people are worried about the situation, but all of the Canary Islands – along with the rest of Spain – remain on the Foreign Office’s safe to travel list and there is no indication this will change at all. 

There is not any worry about international travel as a whole at the moment and airlines and tour operators take the safety and security of their passengers extremely seriously. 

There should be no issues with travel this summer, where lots of Sun readers are looking forward to holidays.

Are Turkey resorts affected? We have a holiday booked for half-term

No – at present Turkey is not impacted at all by the current situation.

While there are Foreign Office bans on travel to the border between Turkey and Syria, the entire rest of the country is safe to travel to.

The popular coastal resorts of Dalaman, Bodrum, Antalya, Side, Marmaris and more are many thousands of miles from the conflict zone.

As the advice is that it is safe to travel, tour operators and airlines are under no obligation to offer you a refund if you choose not to travel. If you decide to cancel your trip, you will lose any money you have paid.

While some people may feel uneasy, the distances involved mean it is extremely unlikely that anything would impact your holiday.

With all package holidays, you have enhanced protection should the situation change.

If the Foreign Office changes its advice to all but essential travel, you will have extra rights to a refund or amended date.

But right now, that is not necessary as trips to the popular Mediterranean Turkish resorts are safe.

We am due to fly to Dubai March 12-18, having paid £6,000 for a package through Emirates. Do you know where I stand with cancelling?

With the huge popularity of holidays to Dubai – more than 1.47MILLION British travellers headed to the Emirate in 2025 – the Foreign Office now advising against all but essential travel will have a huge impact on those with upcoming holidays.

As the situation remains so uncertain, airlines and travel companies are dealing with upcoming bookings on a rolling basis – prioritising those who are due to travel soonest first.

As of today, passengers with bookings up to March 10 can request a refund directly from Emirates via an online form – and you should expect to receive that refund within a week.

But as your holiday doesn’t depart until March 12 you will have to contact Emirates directly to see if they will allow you to amend your booking or get a refund.

I totally appreciate that this is going to be challenging with many hundreds of thousands of travellers looking to rebook flights and holidays.

Right now, British Airways Holidays are offering rebooking options for those travelling up to March 8 to request a refund.

Those travelling up to March 15 can change their holiday dates or destination free of charge if they depart before March 29.

If you amend to a holiday that is more expensive, you’ll have to pay the difference. If it is cheaper, BA will refund you the difference.

Those travelling after March 15 can change their booking up to 14 days before travel for a fee of £100 or if within 14 days of travel for a fee of £500. 

Virgin Atlantic Holidays has the same options in place for the same dates.

 If you have bought travel insurance – and I really do recommend everyone does this from the MOMENT they book their holiday – it would be a good idea to contact them as well to see if there is anything you can claim for.

Anyone with holidays from April onwards, I recommend keeping an eye on the current travel advice, but do not cancel holidays unless you want to be out of pocket.

My daughter is due to return from Mauritius via Dubai on March 5 with Emirates Airlines. Will this be possible & what are her options?

Emirates has only suspended flights until midnight on March 4.

However this is likely to be extended as they are currently only operating repatriation flights for passengers who are stranded in Dubai.

It is advised for your daughter to contact Emirates and see if there is an alternative way to travel home.

Emirates must provide her with an alternative flight home, or a refund.

However, be aware that if she accepts a refund, your daughter will have to pay for her own alternative flight home which might be quicker, but much more expensive and she will not be able to claim the difference back from Emirates.

Air Mauritius offers direct flights from Mauritius to UK, otherwise airlines with non-Dubai stopovers include Air France (stopover in Paris) and Lufthansa (stopover in Frankfurt).

I have a long-haul holiday planned later this year, stopping in the Middle East. Should I cancel my trip or find another airline?

We have had lots of questions from you about upcoming holidays with stopovers in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – seeing as they’re huge hub airports for Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways, this isn’t surprising.

This includes destinations such as Thailand, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bali, China, Vietnam, Australia and Pakistan. 

If you have partly paid for your holidays for any of the above destinations, you must still pay the remaining balance or you will be left out of pocket.

It is only if the UK Foreign Office advises against any travel to these destinations that you will be able to cancel a holiday for a refund.

Unless you are travelling in the next few days, it is likely the holidays will still go ahead.

 If you are wary of booking a stop over in the Middle East, then other popular destinations include Singapore, with Singapore Airlines, or Hong Kong, with Cathay Pacific and Istanbul with Turkish Airlines.

I’m confused about the government advice and where travel companies stand – surely a holiday shouldn’t be classed as “essential travel”?

I appreciate the travel warnings can be slightly confusing, so I’ll break them down for you.

There are two travel warnings from the UK Foreign Office – “against all but essential travel” and “against all travel”.

If the advice is against all travel, package holiday companies and airlines have to give you a refund.

If the advice is against all but essential travel the legal standing is a little more complicated. 

However, most travel companies will offer to refund or amend your booking as they recognise they will not be able to provide you with the trip you purchased due to exceptional circumstances.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday urged the Supreme Court to limit the reach of the 2nd Amendment and deny gun rights to “habitual” users of drugs, including marijuana.

But most of the justices sounded skeptical. They questioned whether marijuana users are so dangerous they should not have firearms.

They noted too that President Trump signed a recent executive order to reclassify marijuana as lesser controlled substance.

“Why is this a test case?,” asked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Federal laws on “controlled substances” and the 2nd Amendment created a conflict between gun rights and illegal drugs, but Gorsuch said marijuana users are not seen as a particular danger to the public.

“This is an odd case to have chosen” to resolve this legal dispute, he said.

Most of the justices said they were wary of ruling broadly to decide the legal status of other addictive drugs.

At issue was a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which forbids gun possession by any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The Justice Department says about 300 people per year are charged with a crime under this provision. They include Hunter Biden, the former president’s son, who was charged and convicted of lying about his drug addiction when he applied for a handgun permit.

The case brought together civil libertarians and gun rights advocates, who said millions of Americans could face criminal charges if the government’s view is upheld.

Deputy Solicitor Gen. Sarah Harris, representing the administration, said the court should uphold the law to deny guns to habitual users of unlawful drugs.

“Congress decided it is dangerous to mix firearms with controlled substances,” she said.

But Erin Murphy, a Washington attorney, said gun owners have not been notice that having a handgun at home could lead to a criminal prosecution if they sometimes use marijuana.

She said the court should hand down a “narrow” decision that spares her client.

Ali Hemani, a Texas man, was investigated by the FBI in 2020 for his family’s suspected ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated terrorist group.

When the FBI obtained a warrant to search his home, agents found a Glock pistol and 60 grams of marijuana as well as 4.7 grams of cocaine in his mother’s room. Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with illegal gun possession because he was an unlawful drug user.

But citing the 2nd Amendment, a federal judge and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the charges on the grounds that he was not under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest.

Appealing, the Trump administration said the Supreme Court should uphold the 1968 law and deny guns to those who are “habitual users” of illegal drugs.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said this prosecution “falls well within Congress’s authority to temporarily disarm categories of dangerous persons — here, habitual drug users.”

From the nation’s founding, “habitual drunkards” could be prohibited from having guns and that historic principle supports denying guns to habitual drug users.

The American Civil Liberties Union defended Hemani said the government’s view threatens to broadly extend the reach of the criminal law.

“Like tens of millions of Americans, Ali Hemani owned a handgun for self-defense, keeping it safely secured at home. Like many of those same Americans, he also consumed marijuana a few days a week,” they said in their brief.

“According to the government, those two facts alone sufficed to make him an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance who could face criminal penalties.”

QUEEN of Sun Holidays from £9.50 Tracy Kennedy is back to answer all your burning questions on booking your break

The £9.50 holiday deal is the ultimate steal, but with hundreds of parks and dates to choose from, how do you make sure you’re bagging the best of the bunch?

Having taken Sun holidays for the past 30 years, our expert Tracy Kennedy has plenty of experience when it comes to Holidays from £9.50.

So whether you’re looking for the holiday parks with the most beautiful beaches, or the very best in entertainment, Tracy is here to answer your questions and help you find the perfect park.

This week, Sun reader Maureen Findley has been awarded best question of the week – which means she’s been selected to win a £100 Amazon voucher. Congratulations, Maureen!

What is the best place to travel in the winter?

Read more on £9.50 holidays

PITCH UP

Best £9.50 Holiday parks for families & how to travel on a budget – by our expert

PITCH IN

Our £9.50 Holidays expert answers YOUR questions – including top parks for couples

Dawn Baines

If you’re planning a holiday in the winter, I’d recommend looking for somewhere with a lot of indoor things to do.

Start by checking the websites of parks you’re interested in to see what activities they have that take place indoors.

And if you don’t mind going out for a brisk winter walk, a lot of places look really pretty in the snow, too.

Scotland and North Wales are beautiful in winter. From some sites in North Wales you can see the top of Mount Snowdon, and it looks so lovely in the snow.

Which holiday is suitable for a mixed age family?

Maureen Findley

I’d recommend somewhere like Billing Aquadrome in Northampton. That site truly has everything for all ages.

You can go fishing or swimming, plus you’ve got arcades and a ball pit for the little ones.

There’s lots of walks all around the area and the lakes too, if the older members of the family want to get some peace and quiet.

Plus they have an outdoors amphitheatre with entertainment for all sorts of different age groups.

Is there a specific week in the year that is less popular and therefore easier to book?

Ceri Mullen

This depends on if you’re bringing children on your holiday. But if you’re going as a couple or group of adults, you should definitely book during term time.

I’d say the best week to go would be when the kids go back to school in early September.

You get some really good deals and nice weather then, too. Early June just before the schools break up is another good time.

If you’ve bringing the kids, then October is less busy than summer, but still packed with activities and things to do for Halloween.

Sometimes the half term dates are different throughout the UK, so if you live in a different part of the country to your holiday park, then you might be able to go the week before or the week after their half term.

Which park has the best evening entertainment for families?

Nikki Lewis

I’ve always loved the entertainment at Parkdean Resorts holiday parks.

I found Lower Hyde on the Isle of Wight had some fantastic entertainment.

You had bingo and quizzes which were both great for mums, dads and kids to all join in together.

Then you’ve got discos and character meet and greets, which are great for the kids.

Some of us adults then stayed up and watched a couple of comics, and they were absolutely fantastic. They had some hilarious jokes which I definitely can’t repeat!

What are some of the most popular locations?

Rebekah Lewington

I see the names of lots of popular parks pop up over and over again.

Seal Bay in West Sussex is one of the top parks and for good reason, it speaks for itself. There’s loads to do on that park, it’s massive!

There’s a free bus that picks you up and takes you where you want all around the park – which is especially great if you’re not so mobile.

Trecco Bay in Porthcawl is another popular one. The whole park is absolutely gorgeous, and people always recommend it after going there.

Lyons Robin Hood in Rhyl is also very popular. There’s loads to do on that site, with family entertainment all through the day into the evenings.

There’s a fantastic arcade, a soft play and even a train on site that takes you for a little ride around the park.

Now they’e building a high ropes course, so if you’ve got kids that enjoy adventurous activities then I’d recommend it!

Plus you’ve got the beach across the road where you can go seal spotting.

Before I book a location, can I find reviews to see what other families made of the park?

Graeme Sutherland

There’s lots of reviews online for the holiday parks, and you can check Google reviews to see what other people thought about their stay.

But I’d also recommend searching the park name on Facebook. People in my Facebook group put their photos and reviews up all the time from their £9.50 holidays.

It’s also a good way to see what’s on at each park, and get some extra tips and tricks on what people enjoyed doing there.

There’s also people in the Facebook group who post about what’s going on in their area, so you can get clued up before you go!

Which park would you say has the best beach?

Lisa Evans

I’ve stayed in a lot of coastal resorts and love visiting beaches, so this is a really difficult one!

But I think the best beach I’ve found would be Towan Beach in Newquay, as well as Fistral Beach.

They’re both absolutely stunning, clean beaches in Cornwall with clear water.

There’s also surf schools, cafes, ice cream shops, restaurants and more nearby – Newquay has everything you’d want from a beach.

So, here we are, once again. The United States has flooded the Middle East with combat capabilities. A massive investment has already been made in airframe hours, manpower, and naval resources in preparation for what could be the biggest initial military action America has taken in more than 20 years. Such an operation is not without absolutely massive risks. Iran has prepared for this day for many decades, and so many questions remain outstanding. Glaring ones. Ones that impact the globe and especially those tasked with fighting what could very well be a bloody war that has, at least at this time, highly opaque goals.

Let’s talk about those questions.

What is the goal?

This is the biggest unknown. What are we getting into here? Aside from the possibility that this is a giant feint — a hammer and anvil tactic to force a diplomatic outcome — there have to be clear military goals. Would an air campaign be focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear program alone? There are limitations to achieving that goal with airpower. Israel, too, is well aware of this. Is this goal to be paired with absolutely neutering Iran’s military-industrial base, along with its existing combat capabilities? That would seem more likely, but doing so would require a much larger, sustained operation.

There have also been reports that the White House is eyeing a limited operation in order to force Iran to make a deal. This seems wildly reckless both on a military and diplomatic level, and I doubt these reports are true. The Pentagon would never recommend this. It would ruin any element of surprise and the cumulative impact of using everything at its disposal to shock, blind, and deafen Iran’s command and control. It would also likely result in Iran counter-attacking, which sets off a chain of events that will be hard to pull back from.

Then there is regime change. That term comes with immense baggage for obvious and totally relevant reasons. Even if this goal is achieved — the collapse of the current regime — mainly through strikes, what comes next? Is there a plan in place for who will succeed Khamenei, and what would that group’s own goals be? How would they seize power when the power vacuum appears? Or will decapitating the regime throw Iran into civil war or even worse, a country controlled by the fanatical IRGC, which, on paper, would seem to be a prime candidate with the might and infrastructure to assume control.

In other words, could lopping off the head of the snake just see another, even more gruesome serpent take its place?

We don’t know the intelligence or what is going on clandestinely to see that such a risky operation has any chance of long-term success. Without a solid plan, such a move would seem to only invite more risk.

And once again, obtaining this level of transformation largely via airpower is a highly questionable proposition, at best. There is absolutely no appetite domestically to engage in another ground war in the Middle East, so that option is a non-starter, which is a good thing, as America’s track record in this regard is terrible.

Finally, as we have mentioned before, the U.S. military has a lot of combat capability now in the region, and more that can strike from afar, but there doesn’t appear to be enough to sustain a long campaign with a wider set of objectives. So this may limit what can be achieved.

That brings us to the next question.

What will Israel’s role be?

I think it’s safe to assume that Israel will be involved deeply in any major military operation the United States executes against Iran. Frankly, for any sustained campaign, based on the airpower capabilities in the region, America will need Israel’s help, and for that to be en masse.

Israel brings hundreds of fighter aircraft, unique munitions, and more to the fight. Supported fully by America’s tanker force, Israel’s tactical airpower will be far more effective than it was during the 12 Day War less than a year ago. Combining forces fully to achieve a common outcome is more powerful than the sum of its parts in this case.

Beyond traditional airpower, leveraging Israel’s intelligence would be critical. Traditional intelligence products from Israel will be key in achieving any outcome faster in an air war. The same can be said for the flow of U.S. information in Israel’s direction. Still, operating seamlessly is very tough in such a complex, long-range combat scenario. While Israel and the United States have repeatedly trained on smaller scales for this type of operation, doing it on a massive scale is a different story. How the tasking orders would be assigned and deconflicted would be very interesting to watch.

But even above the traditional combat power and intelligence Israel can offer such a mission, Israel’s deep presence on the ground in Iran will be arguably of the greatest value. Nobody is anywhere as deeply embedded inside Iran as Israel. And this will impact the full gamut of potential operational scenarios.

Case in point is the Mossad’s novel operation to take out Iran’s air defenses in key areas using operatives on the ground equipped with one-way attack drones and loitering anti-tank guided missiles. While suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses is largely thought to be relegated to the role of airpower, it is anything but limited to just this domain. And Israel proved this on an unprecedented level in the opening stages of the air war in June. Those near-field attacks on Iranian air defense sites allowed standoff munitions, drones, and eventually manned aircraft to make it to their targets, firmly setting the momentum in Israel’s favor during the opening parts of the campaign. It wouldn’t be that surprising if this is repeated, at least in some altered fashion, during whatever could happen in the coming days.

Mossad operatives on the ground also worked to assassinate the cream of Iran’s nuclear scientist corps during the operation, mainly using drones launched from near their targets. We would likely see a similar operation take place against military and regime leadership in the opening stages of the looming conflict, if it comes to pass. There are no indications that the United States has anywhere near this capability working inside Iran.

As we have discussed for years, Israel would likely be willing to put special operations units on the ground to seize and destroy absolutely critical hardened targets, such as nuclear sites or possibly individuals hidden within regime bunkers, that are not capable of being destroyed from the air. The United States could as well, but the political risks would be far higher if such an operation went awry.

Finally, it is worth noting that going to war alongside Israel against Iran brings additional diplomatic risks in the region, although these have waned in recent years as Arab countries have become far less hostile to the Jewish State. These Arab states also could see a massive benefit from a successful campaign that rejiggers the status quo in the region and ends Iran’s troublesome influence throughout it. Still, the economic disruption alone could be large, especially if the war carries and if Iran actively works to deny access to the Persian Gulf.

Real dangers

We have not seen modern Iran fight for its very life against the United States or even Israel. On paper, Iran can do immense damage to the region. Yes, it can close and mine the Strait of Hormuz, causing massive repercussions that could last long after the war ends, a possibility which you can read about here. This is a well-understood danger. But above even that, Iran has an absolutely huge inventory of standoff weapons — specifically cruise missiles, long-range one-way attack drones, and most importantly, ballistic missiles. On the latter, there is a broad misconception that Israel wiped out Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

During the 12 Day War, Israel was concerned with Iran’s long-range ballistic missiles — MRBMs and IRBMs. These are also the easiest to find, fix, and destroy. They are large and their launchers are vulnerable because of it, especially during the pre-launch fueling stage. The location of the storage areas for these missiles is well known, including the missile cave complexes, some of which have the ability to launch the missiles through apertures in launch room ceilings. By hitting the entry and exit points of these facilities, these weapons are not destroyed but they are trapped inside.

In addition, Israel focused their interdiction ‘missile hunting’ efforts on these long-range weapons that threaten its homeland. They were also the weapons that had to be exposed as they were employed in retaliatory strikes during the war. The shorter-range stuff didn’t need to be as it was largely not used.

To make this clear, Iran’s far more plentiful short-range ballistic missiles that threaten American bases in Gulf Arab allied states were not heavily targeted. The same can be said for the shorter-range drones and cruise missiles.

So no, these capabilities were not knocked out by any means, and they are also by far the easiest for Iran to disperse and hide. This makes hunting for them from the air extremely problematic. This is especially true when Iran enters into a combat state, where it distributes these missiles, which are largely loaded onto common truck platforms, into population centers and hidden under pretty much anything. They can also shoot and scoot much faster than their long-range counterparts.

The IRGC-N took a massive delivery of anti ship missiles for coastal defense

Note the dual tube launcher in the pics, which we’ve never seen before. Seems to be a new anti ship new cruise missile. Sadly no information was given besides pics

My guess is possible supersonic AShM pic.twitter.com/i7i0z8uFc0

— Iran Defense commentary (unofficial) (@IranDefense) August 9, 2024

With all of America’s intelligence capabilities, finding and destroying these weapons from the air will be extremely challenging. Even the relatively meager arsenal belonging to Yemen’s Houthis proved vexing for the U.S. military after many months of sustained ‘hunting.’ The Houthis continued to get off successful coastal launches throughout these operations. The scale of the Iranian threat is exponentially larger, and the country has more complex terrain to hide these weapons.

Iran’s shorter-range standoff weapons number in the thousands. They have the ability to saturate the best defenses on earth and lay waste to prized targets across the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, and deeper into allied Arab nations. This not only makes nearby basing of U.S. aircraft and personnel problematic, but it greatly increases the cost of any war the United States could execute against Iran.

We have seen what it took to defend against just one volley of Iranian short-range ballistic missiles. It resulted in the largest volley of Patriot interceptors in history. Even that defensive action wasn’t entirely successful at rebuffing the attack, let alone repeated ones that would include layers of drones, as well as cruise and ballistic missiles.

Footage of a US/Qatari PATRIOT surface to air missile system conducting a large ballistic missile engagement over Al-Udeid this evening, salvoing out dozens of PAC-3 interceptors at incoming Iranian ballistic missiles. pic.twitter.com/a7OHrs9svr

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 23, 2025

There is also a risk to American warships, even those that are operating far out to sea. Iran has shown it has the ability to launch long-range anti-ship weaponry not just from its coasts and warships, but from unassuming seaborne platforms, including using containerized missiles and drones. The farther U.S. Navy vessels have to operate from Iranian territory also means their missiles won’t be able to penetrate as far into the country. A carrier’s air wing will need additional tanking support to get to its targets, and sortie rates will be lowered.

These capabilities, along with the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz, drastically increase the chances of expanding the conflict by pulling Arab countries into it, as well, which would complicate, not help the cause, at least in many respects.

Iran knows full well where American aircraft are currently based, and they will throw everything they have at these sites. This includes America’s sprawling airbase in Jordan that is packed with tactical airpower. They know what defenses are there and have an understanding of what it will take to overwhelm them if they get the chance to do so. So the idea that we could not see mass losses of aircraft and other materiel, and even lives, on the ground, even when striking from afar, is not reality.

The same can be said about an air war. The U.S. has the most advanced air combat capabilities on earth, but ‘shit happens,’ especially during war. Even the Houthis nearly downed U.S. fighter aircraft optimized to destroy enemy air defenses. But regardless of defenses and the state of Iran’s air defense overlay, putting Americans over Iran, and repeatedly over days and weeks, is a risk. Aircraft can malfunction and mistakes can be made. When that happens, it will require even more risk to push combat search and rescue assets into the area to try and recover the crew. In other words, regardless of America’s outstanding air warfare capabilities, there is still a real risk involved in any operation over Iran.

Finally, if Iran is really backed into a corner, and especially if its most extremist elements remain in play, it could resort to weapons of mass destruction. Specifically, chemical weapons and rudimentary radiological ones (dirty bombs) could be used in a dying gasp of the regime. If they did this, it would mean a certain end for the sitting power structure in the country, but if that is going to happen anyway, they could lash out in horrible ways. There is debate as to whether Iran would, or even could, actually do this, but historically, the regime in Tehran is no stranger to the use of chemical weapons.

Defending Israel again

Iran did not run out of long-range ballistic missiles during the 12 Day War, either. They ran out of ones available for launch, and they likely saw real degradation in their ability to launch those accessible due to Israel’s interdiction efforts and disarray in Iranian command and control after nearly two weeks of being bombarded. Since that war, Iran has been pumping out more of these missiles at a high rate, despite Israel’s attacks on missile production-related targets. Some of these weapons are quite advanced, proving their ability to penetrate the IDF’s multi-tier integrated air defense system, the most advanced one on Earth, an air defense capability you can read all about here.

At the same time, the 12 Day War saw the United States and Israel burn through stocks of advanced interceptors, especially the mid-course or near mid-course intercept-capable ones. These weapons take years to produce and cost many millions of dollars each. Israel’s coveted Arrow system was reported to be running low on interceptors towards the end of the war, although how accurate those reports were is in question. The U.S. military burned through a large portion of its THAAD interceptors and many of the U.S. Navy’s prized SM-3 interceptors. This is on top of Israel ripping through countless Stunners fired by David’s Sling. The U.S. also fired a considerable number of PAC-3 Patriots and air-to-air missiles during the conflict while defending in areas outside of Israel from missile and drone attacks. But it’s the stockpile of the upper tier of missile defense interceptors that is most concerning.

If Iran was truly fighting for its life and knowing the end could be near, how many missiles will it send at Israel, and how many interceptors are available to defend against those barrages? Iran also has become increasingly savvy on what tactics to employ and where in order to overwhelm Israel’s defenses. While targeting has focused, at least to a degree, on military and governmental targets, if this was an all-out conflict, it’s likely Iran would just concentrate on population centers with whatever it has to throw at the cause.

The U.S. stockpile of advanced munitions is already a real concern after multiple campaigns to defend Israel, the long and violent standoff in the Red Sea, and the war in Ukraine. This is especially true for its more advanced interceptors, which are also in extreme demand among allies globally. This is all happening as the threat from China is growing more concerning by the day. A war in the Pacific will consume stocks of these weapons at a vastly higher rate than anything we have seen before. If those magazines run dry, it could mean the difference between winning and losing in that critical theater. And remember, these weapons take years to produce and cost many millions of dollars each. So it’s not like you can just say, ‘we’ll buy more.’ Of course, we will, but we won’t get those weapons for years, even as expansion of production is now underway across the DoW’s munitions portfolio.

So the cost of taking on Iran is not just in money and assets, and especially blood, it’s the opportunity cost of expending precious weapons in a war of choice that would be essential in a war of necessity that could erupt at any time.

Wild cards

There are capabilities and war plans we know nothing about. It may be possible that the United States thinks it can break Iran’s command and control capabilities so quickly that it can preempt many of its most dangerous weapons from being used in large quantities. This could come in the form of cyber attacks, other forms of espionage, electronic warfare, and exotic weaponry — and more likely a combination of the above. It could also be the orchestration of an insider coup-like scenario.

There is also the possibility that the United States thinks Iran’s military apparatus would simply collapse under a full combined aerial assault by the U.S. and Israel. A possible decapitation of the regime is another factor here.

If this is the case, and Iran’s warfighting capabilities can be left largely unused, then the risk equation changes. But this is a massive bet to make, and just how certain whatever measures are used will have the exact crippling effects intended could mean the difference between go and no-go for a major campaign.

In other words, we really don’t know what the United States and Israel still have up their sleeves. And maybe they have nothing that would cause such a dramatic effect at all. Instead, hitting them traditionally fast and hard, along with cyber, espionage, electronic warfare, and everything else, will be needed to erode Iran’s ability to fight back over time.

Regardless, the United States and Israel have prepared for exactly this eventuality for decades, so there certainly are bound to be some surprises. Of what magnitude is the question.

What if a deal is made, but Israel doesn’t think it’s good enough?

It’s possible that the game tree could expand in such a way that the United States makes a nuclear deal with Iran, but it does not address the long-range missile threat, or even the nuclear program, to a sufficient degree in Israel’s eyes. If this occurs, there is still the chance that Israel goes it alone and tries to do as much damage as possible to both of these elements. In some ways, this could be played to America’s advantage as it could deny being involved in the conflict and work to see if the deal sticks even after Israel’s kinetic action. In this case, American resources would be used to defend Israel, but not participate in the attack.

This may sound far-fetched, but it really isn’t an impossibility. Especially if Trump realizes how much of a commitment achieving something meaningful via an air campaign could become, as well as the risks of what comes after on the ground in Iran.

Whether a nuclear deal would even survive such a situation is unclear, but it’s possible.

Why now?

In the end, these are the fundamental questions Trump has to be asking himself and his aides: Is going to war with Iran really worth the risks, both the known ones and unknown ones, and what is the goal in doing so? Is that goal readily attainable and at what cost?

These questions also bleed directly into the political arena. Trump claimed to be the President that would get America out of wars, not start them, and especially ones that seem like they could spiral out of control relatively easily, resulting in much longer-term commitments. While he has had some stunningly successful military victories as of late, and there is a danger for politicians to think it will always turn out a similar way, that can change very quickly. If America wakes up to seeing a U.S. pilot being dragged through the streets of Tehran, any support for this conflict could quickly evaporate.

Above all else, the question has to be asked, why now? What has prompted the idea of declaring war on Iran at this moment? Yes, the protests and the brutal deaths of thousands at the hands of the regime seemed to have moved Trump, but that was subsequently used as a pretext for nuclear negotiations, not to correct human rights abuses.

In addition, Trump has declared repeatedly that he destroyed Iran’s nuclear program after the B-2 strikes in June. So why, just eight months after that action took place, is the United States about to go all-in against Iran over its nuclear program? We have heard anecdotes about possible threats of Iran starting the nuclear program back up, the threat posed by the enriched uranium they already have, and the possibility that they could develop new, longer-range missiles that could hit the U.S. one day, maybe. Yet nothing has been presented in a concrete manner as to why doing this right now is essential. It doesn’t match Trump’s long-standing political rhetoric at all.

There is obviously much the public doesn’t know, but the risk-reward equation seems like a uniquely puzzling one with this crisis, at least at this time.

If Iran doesn’t make a deal, it seems clear that Trump has put himself in a position where he will either have his bluff called or he will need to commit to an air war against Iran.

What happens from that historic split in the road is really anyone’s guess.

Including the Pentagon’s.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Manila, Philippines – “Bongbong is our principal worry. He is too carefree and lazy,” then-President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos Sr wrote in 1972.

Marcos Sr was referring to his only son and namesake by the child’s moniker, Bongbong.

He was concerned about what the future would hold for the young Marcos.

“The boy must realise his weakness – the carefree wayward ways that may have been bred in him,” his father further warned in his diary.

Half a century later, his son – Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr – would be sworn in as the 17th president of the Philippines, following a landslide victory in the 2022 polls.

The rise of Marcos Jr to the presidency marked his family’s dramatic rehabilitation after the mass street protests that forced Marcos Sr from power and the family into exile in 1986.

In his inaugural speech, Marcos Jr invoked memories of his late father’s presidency – though he skipped the years of brutal dictatorship and reported plunder of state resources – to project hope for “a better future” for 110 million Filipinos.

“You will get no excuses from me,” Marcos Jr said as he took his oath of office.

“You will not be disappointed.”

But three years into his term in office, Marcos Jr’s popularity has withered.

His political alliance with Vice President Sara Duterte has shattered, and his administration is ensnared in a multibillion-dollar corruption scandal that has plunged the country into a period of uncertainty.

The president who ran on a platform of unity is now struggling to lead a divided nation that is deeply disappointed over his lacklustre performance.

On the 40th anniversary of the People Power Revolution that ousted his father, Marcos Jr seems unable to escape history as some political factions in the opposition are calling for his removal – an ending that befell his father on the fateful date of February 25, 1986.

‘No plan’

Political analyst and economist Andrew Masigan pulls no punches. Masigan said what is happening in the Philippines is a consequence of an electorate choosing the “entitled son of a dictator” over a more competent candidate.

“[Marcos Jr] campaigned under the slogan and promise of unity. Economists and political pundits all assumed that there was a plan behind it. We’ve been waiting, and it has been three years. No such thing exists,” he said.

“His plan was to be president. It was a self-serving plan. It’s a presidency about Bongbong Marcos for Bongbong Marcos,” he added.

“He just wanted the opportunity to whitewash the tainted Marcos name,” he added.

As president, Marcos Jr has “squandered” the demographic advantage of the Philippines, Masigan continued, pointing to the country’s youth, who make up almost half of the population. Given such a youthful and dynamic society, the country’s economy should have been growing 7 to 8 percent annually by now, Masigan said.

Instead, the economy posted a sluggish 4.4 percent growth in 2025, well below the government target of 5.5-6.5 percent, he added.

Susan Kurdli, an assistant professor at De La Salle University in Manila, said the first three years of Marcos Jr’s six-year term were “indeed a period of missed opportunities”.

Kurdli said the “vague direction” the Philippines is heading was only to be expected, “as Marcos Jr never ran on a clear policy ticket”.

“He won the election largely by relying on the tried and tested tactics of tribalism, name recognition and alliance building,” she said.

Foreign investment has also declined by half from $9.42bn in 2024 to $4.7bn in 2025, its sharpest fall in five years, according to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).

Unemployment rose at the same time from 3.8 percent in 2024 to 4.2 percent in 2025, PSA data showed. In 2025, only 172,000 jobs were added to the overall labour market, making it the fifth-worst year in job creation in 25 years, according to the think tank IBON Foundation.

A lack of economic opportunity and unemployment are the top risks for the Philippines in the next two years, the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2026 Global Risks Report notes.

If the weak economic figures have left Filipinos disgruntled, allegations of corruption have left them seething with anger.

“The scandal allegations surrounding him and his family have particularly hit a nerve with voters,” Kurdli of De La Salle University told Al Jazeera.

“They have definitely impacted the perceived legitimacy of Marcos Jr as a national leader.”

The latest corruption perceptions index conducted by Transparency International (TI) reflects that assessment.

According to the anticorruption body’s latest report, the Philippines has slipped six notches lower, ranking 120th out of 182 territories covered.

In response to the TI report, presidential spokesperson Claire Castro said Marcos Jr “has not lost interest” in fighting corruption, and is working to strengthen government institutions.

‘Ghost projects’

It was in the middle of last year when allegations first emerged that Marcos Jr had abused his authority by approving three consecutive national budgets riddled with questionable infrastructure projects amounting to billions of dollars.

Among those implicated in the alleged scheme was Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, the once-powerful speaker of the House of Representatives and a first cousin of Marcos Jr, who oversaw the drafting of the national budget.

He was accused by opposition congresspeople of manipulating the budget. An investigation by a Philippine news website also linked him to multimillion-dollar homes in the Philippines and the United States that are allegedly not listed in his government disclosure forms. He has since relinquished his post but has not been called to account despite massive protests and political pressure.

Also accused of cornering millions of dollars in public funds for pet projects were the president’s sister, Senator Maria Imelda Marcos, and his son, Ferdinand Alexander Marcos, a congressman.

Combined, the three Marcos relatives secured government projects worth at least $560m in the last three years, according to public works department data and the National Expenditure Program listed in the budget. They have all denied wrongdoing related to the awarding of the lucrative projects.

Private contractors and government bureaucrats were also linked to the scandal.

Some were reported by the news media to have spent their newfound wealth on Bentley and Rolls-Royce vehicles and gambling sprees. One mid-ranking official, whose monthly salary was the equivalent of $1,250, admitted during a congressional inquiry that he owned a GMC Denali SUV worth $200,000, a Lamborghini Urus worth between $500,000 and $700,000 and a Ferrari estimated at $1m.

Further investigations revealed several nonexistent government infrastructure initiatives, described as “ghost projects”, worth millions of dollars. Marcos Jr himself discovered an abandoned flood control project estimated to be about $1m in Baliwag, a city just north of Metro Manila.

In Quezon City in Metro Manila, the local government reported that 35 flood control projects were missing out of the 331 listed, with a total budget of almost $300m.

According to estimates by the Department of Finance, alleged corruption in flood control projects cost taxpayers approximately $2bn between 2023 and 2025.

The scale of the corruption allegations has reminded some Filipinos of the time when Marcos Sr and his wife, Imelda, ruled the country in what historians have described as a “conjugal dictatorship”.

During their two decades in power, the Marcos couple were accused of emptying the Philippine treasury of up to $10bn.

Masigan, the political analyst and economist, said despite all efforts to distance himself from the ongoing scandal, it is difficult for the current president to do so.

“The three budgets were authored, presided over and approved by the president himself. He signed it,” Masigan said.

“Everything leads to him.”

‘Give Marcos some credit’

Jan Credo, political science professor at Silliman University in Dumaguete City, Philippines, said despite the fierce criticism of the president, Marcos Jr should still get some credit for his role in highlighting the massive corruption scandal during his annual State of the Nation Address last year.

“President Marcos, in fact, started the expose when he chastised members of Congress and told them, ‘Shame on you’, for their involvement in the alleged massive bribery,” Credo told Al Jazeera.

“What this has generated is the consciousness among the public about the issue that led to the crystallisation of the social movement against corruption,” he said.

“If you ask me, Marcos Jr does not have anything to do” with the corruption, Credo said, blaming his close allies instead.

Credo also did not believe that the ongoing scandal would cost Marcos Jr the support of one of the country’s most powerful institutions, the military. Over the last four decades, two Philippine presidents, including Marcos Sr, were forced out of office in popular revolts backed by the military. Two other presidents faced coup attempts.

“Marcos Jr may be in survival mode now. But he is also fortunate to have a military that is highly professionalised and no longer politicised,” Credo said.

“The recent calls by retired military officers to withdraw support from Marcos Jr have not gained traction, because we have learned their lesson,” he explained.

Political analyst Masigan agreed, saying a move by the military was “out of the question”, noting that while there were some whispers for Marcos Jr’s removal, “nothing is being seriously considered”.

“As far as the military is concerned, they are loyal to the constitution; there is no movement to oust the president and have a caretaker government,” he added.

Securing a legacy

With just about two more years left in office, Marcos Jr still wields enough power to change the narrative of his administration, restore the Marcos name and implement policies that help Filipinos, political observers who spoke to Al Jazeera said.

But the president must act fast before the narrowing window of opportunity closes on him, and he becomes a “lame duck” leader, they added.

Major legislation that needs to be addressed includes government transparency, education, energy and investment reforms, as well as an overhaul of the transport and manufacturing industries, said Kurdli of De La Salle University.

But the most urgent policy reform that Marcos Jr has to address is the passage of a law banning political dynasties, which is the main culprit of corruption in the country, Masigan and Credo said.

“If he really wants to have an impact, he must get the antipolitical dynasty law passed,” Masigan said of the president.

In the Philippines, political dynasties have dominated about 80 percent of seats in the Senate and the House, according to a 2025 analysis by the Anti-Dynasty Network.

At the Philippine Senate, for instance, there are four sets of siblings occupying a third of the 24-seat chamber. At least eight other senators have close family members in the House.

President Marcos Jr comes from a dynasty himself. He has one sibling in the Senate, a son and two cousins in the House, and several relatives elected as town and provincial executives.

Vice President Duterte, who is the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, is no different. Her brother, nephew and a cousin are serving in Congress. Another brother serves as the mayor of the Duterte stronghold, Davao City, while a nephew serves as the vice mayor.

While political dynasties are prohibited under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Congress has failed to pass a supplementary law that spells out what a ban should look like.

For Credo, getting the antipolitical dynasty law passed is “a tall order” for Marcos Jr, given that a vast majority of legislators come from dynasties, guaranteeing fierce resistance.

“But if he can get it done, that would be a major achievement on his part. He will be able to secure his place in the history books,” Credo added.

Masigan said, given the Marcos family history, it is really up to the Filipino citizenry to keep the pressure on and demand real reforms from the government.

“I’ve seen how the Marcoses operate since the 1970s. They are fond of creating a semblance of reforms and giving people hope. But it will never come to fruition,” Masigan said.

“I hope this time it’s different. But I am not holding my breath.”

At more than 2,700 feet, “The Great Wall of Los Angeles” is one of the longest murals in the world and among the most important public artworks in the city. Created by artist Judy Baca between 1974 and 1984, the mural is a groundbreaking depiction of Southern California history from the viewpoint of women and minorities and a potent national symbol at the intersection of art and activism.

Baca’s leadership of the collaborative project made her a legend in the art world. She is the co-founder and artistic director of Social and Public Art Resource Center, or SPARC, a community mural nonprofit and has been hailed as one of the most influential figures of L.A.’s Chicano muralism. “The Great Wall” is on the National Register of Historic Places, and Baca is a National Medal of Arts recipient.

But now Baca, 79, has come under criticism from some of those who have worked most closely with her in recent years.

In interviews, 10 former SPARC employees — including two managers — accuse Baca of using her nonprofit to benefit her private, for-profit art practice, Judy Baca Inc. They allege Baca personally benefited from a $5-million Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant to expand “The Great Wall,” sold the project’s archives to the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art at a large profit to herself, and has blurred the line between her nonprofit and for-profit endeavors.

Baca and SPARC’s board chair, Zojeila Flores, vigorously deny any impropriety or misuse of funds. In an interview, they said grant funds were used appropriately and that Baca maintains a mutually beneficial profit-sharing agreement with SPARC.

Baca ascribes the criticism to disgruntled former employees and hopes SPARC can finish its work on the mural “without more of this sort of rage and hostility and anger and hate.” It’s on schedule to be completed by 2028, she said, showing The Times sections of the mural in progress at a rented space at Bergamot Station Arts Center, an acclaimed, high-end gallery in Santa Monica.

Artist Judy Baca talks to the media after starting to paint a new section of “The Great Wall of Los Angeles” as part of a LACMA exhibition on Oct. 26, 2023.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Baca supporters believe she is a visionary who has used the reputation she earned with “The Great Wall” to continue lifting underserved communities.

“I don’t know how to better serve a community than to represent them well,” said Kelly Watts, who, as a teen in the 1980s, participated in painting “The Great Wall” as a student artist. Watts now lives in Tennessee and said she isn’t familiar with the inner workings of SPARC but that what matters to her is Baca’s guidance over the years. “Judy has been a mentor of mine and has always been a really positive influence on me and my growth as an artist.”

The $5-million grant

At the root of the allegations is Baca’s 2017 announcement that she intended to expand “The Great Wall” to include hundreds of feet of new imagery, representing history from the 1960s up to the present day. The mural, which is in a floodwater channel that runs through the leafy Valley Glen neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley, originally concluded with depictions of two Olympic gold medalists, track star Wilma Rudolph and Native American runner Billy Mills. Baca also sought to add interpretive stations, illuminate the mural at night and build a pedestrian bridge over the Tujunga Wash flood control channel to provide a better view of the work.

Judy Baca painting “The Great Wall of Los Angeles” in 1983.

(SPARC Archives / SPARCinLA.org)

Baca’s goals were boosted in 2021 when the Mellon Foundation — one of the largest and most important nonprofit funders of art projects in the nation — supported “The Great Wall” plans with a $5-million grant to be paid over three years, ending in 2024. The grant was distributed through Mellon’s newly formed $250-million Monuments Project “to express, elevate, and preserve the stories of those who have often been denied historical recognition.” (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Emmett Till Interpretive Center in Mississippi and other noted institutions also received separate grants.)

Among those who question Baca’s stewardship of the grant are Pete Galindo, a former director of the Great Wall of Los Angeles Institute, which SPARC formed to oversee the mural expansion, and Carmen Garcia, who served as director of SPARC for six months ending in early 2023. Both alleged Baca required SPARC employees to also do work for Judy Baca Inc., Baca’s private business for her art.

Garcia resigned after repeatedly raising concerns about alleged misappropriation of Mellon grant funds, which Baca denied, and calling for the board to investigate Baca. She said she was “forcefully” led out of the building.

Galindo was fired in February 2022 after less than a year in his role. He alleges Baca terminated him in retaliation for questions he raised about how she was using the grant and objecting to her work assignments. Before his Great Wall Institute role, Galindo said he had known Baca for nearly 30 years, beginning as a UCLA student in 1996 and later working in various roles on a variety of SPARC initiatives, including as a community public art director.

According to documents reviewed by The Times, including Galindo’s offer letter and a spreadsheet with Mellon grant line items, Galindo’s $75,000 salary was paid through SPARC and the grant, which stipulates the money be used “to support the preservation, activation, and expansion of one of the country’s largest monuments to interracial harmony through civic engagement and muralist training.” But Galindo alleged Baca assigned him work outside SPARC and the Great Wall: to help sell her personal artwork, aid in fixing a termite infestation in her archives and help to manage the production of a mural titled “La Memoria de la Tierra: UCLA,” which was not related to “The Great Wall.”

The Times reviewed a series of text messages between Galindo and Baca in which Baca asked Galindo to help with jobs outside his Great Wall duties, including dealing with termites. The messages included a question to Baca from Galindo confirming she’d like the team to “print the UCLA mural at scale for review.” Baca replies that she will call momentarily. Another group chat between Galindo and two other SPARC employees is about meeting to move Baca’s belongings out of her office at UCLA in 2021.

Baca denied Galindo’s allegations, including that she asked Galindo to help manage the UCLA mural — a task outside of the Mellon grant’s purview. She said the project was brought to her personally and she referred the work to SPARC. The mural was completed on-site through a research and teaching facility known as the Digital/Mural Lab, she said. SPARC received money for the project, Baca wrote in a statement, although Baca got paid a commission — an “established practice” at SPARC for paying artists for their work.

In an interview, SPARC board chair Flores declined to say how much Baca earned from that project or Baca’s specific commission rate. However, on a hypothetical $200,000 project she said about $58,000 could go to SPARC for costs and fees. The remaining $142,000 could go to other vendors and Baca.

For decades, Baca brought in dozens of commissions to SPARC without being paid, SPARC said in a statement. The board voted to change that in recent years with a so-called “fiscal sponsorship arrangement,” which allows paid projects to piggyback on SPARC’s tax-exempt status. In this case, Baca earns a commission and SPARC receives funds for employee work on projects.

SPARC’S website currently lists nine board members. Baca and Flores are included, as is Mercedes Gertz, who rents an art studio in SPARC’s building. Baca’s cousin, Anthony Salcido, serves as the board’s finance chair. Bookkeeper Gloria Thompson is also Baca’s cousin.

“Mr. Salcido began working with SPARC only after consultation with legal counsel and Board approval, with Judy recused from the vote,” Flores wrote in an email. “Ms. Thompson began with SPARC as a volunteer and later became bookkeeper following formal consultation with legal.”

In 2022, after he was fired from SPARC, Galindo wrote a letter to Emil J. Kang, then the Mellon Foundation’s program director for arts and culture, to allege that Baca had misused the Mellon grant money by asking him to do work for her personal business.

“Throughout my time as the Great Wall of Los Angeles Institute Director, she focused my work on her personal exhibitions, sale of artworks, training her personal assistant, overseeing commissions, press and documentation,” Galindo wrote in the letter, concluding, “While Judy’s contribution to the field over the years cannot be denied, her treatment of employees, unequal pay scales and overall exploitation of staff and artists is anathema to the values and ideals of social justice movements and the monuments they inspire.”

Baca said she could not comment on personnel matters, but in a statement, SPARC said, “We strive to be fair and professional in all our personnel matters.”

Judy Baca poses in front of her artwork “La Salsera” at LA Plaza de Cultura y Artes in downtown Los Angeles in 2024.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Galindo said he did not receive a reply to his letter from Kang or the Mellon Foundation.

The Mellon Foundation issued a statement to The Times, confirming it had received Galindo’s letter, which “was handled in accordance with Mellon policy on third party complaints about our grantees.” The foundation added that it “does not comment on issues pertaining to internal matters of its grantees.” SPARC’s grant status never changed.

Garcia, who was hired as SPARC’s executive director after Galindo left the organization, remembered dealing with heightened inquiries from Mellon representatives, including culture program director Kang. Once, she said, the foundation asked SPARC for additional information on how grant money was being spent.

SPARC said in its response to The Times that such questions from funders were routine.

“Mellon consistently reviews all of its grantees’ performance, as is standard for nonprofit funders,” SPARC said.

Baca told The Times that she was unaware that Mellon had raised questions about how the grant was being used. However, in a text exchanged with Garcia in 2023 and reviewed by The Times, she indicated she had spoken to Kang at a National Medal of Arts event in Washington, D.C.

“They will ask us to improve some things but generally we had a long discussion and lots of laughs about me ‘hating the interrogation by a bunch of white me[n],’” Baca wrote. “He got a laugh out of it and knew they were a pain in the a—.”

When asked about the text she sent to Garcia, Baca said, “It was an informal conversation at a White House reception. We didn’t talk about the specifics of the grant itself. The conversation really was about the review process.”

Who should profit from ‘The Great Wall’?

Work on “The Great Wall of Los Angeles” began in 1974 and was completed over five summers by Baca with the help of many now well-known artists including Isabel Castro, Ulysses Jenkins, Judithe Hernández, Patssi Valdez, Margaret Garcia, Christina Schlesinger and Judy Chicago. More than 400 young people and their families — many from underserved neighborhoods — also contributed to the project, including 80 youths recruited from the juvenile justice system.

The collective effort made “The Great Wall” a work of social justice, and in 1976 led to the founding of Baca’s nonprofit, SPARC, with its stated mission of producing, preserving and promoting, “activist and socially relevant artwork,” and fostering “artistic collaborations that empower communities who face marginalization or discrimination.”

“The Great Wall of Los Angeles” on April 9, 2025.

(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)

Some former SPARC employees feel that Baca has failed to honor the community that toiled to create “The Great Wall.” They have expressed concern that Baca has benefited unfairly from the project, and, in particular, the sale of work related to it.

Flores disagrees, writing, “For 50 years, SPARC has used art to empower communities facing marginalization and/or discrimination. This currently includes immigrant populations traumatized by ICE. Further, SPARC ensures that working artists can remain in Venice, a neighborhood with deep artistic and cultural roots.”

When “The Great Wall” was originally copyrighted in 1983, authorship of the work was attributed to both “Judith F. Baca” and the “Social Public Art Resource Center.” In 2011, however, after a restoration effort led by SPARC in which the mural was completely painted over, the project was again copyrighted, this time solely under Baca’s name. Former employees question the ethics of Baca’s profiting off a celebrated community effort, but Flores said Baca has always retained ownership of her work and that, “Owning a copyright is not the same as owning an artwork itself.” Baca, Flores said, evenly splits copyright licensing fees with SPARC.

Baca sold “The Great Wall” archives to the Lucas Museum in 2021. The sale included more than 350 objects and ephemera, including concept drawings, site plans, sketches and correspondence with community leaders, scholars, historians and collaborators.

A Lucas Museum representative declined to comment on how much the museum paid for the archive or whether or not the acquisition was made from Baca or SPARC.

Galindo said he was told by former SPARC executive director Carlos Rogel that it sold for $1.5 million. Rogel declined a request for comment. Another source close to SPARC, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation, also said the sale was for $1.5 million.

Baca and Flores declined to say what the archives sold for. In an emailed response, Flores wrote that Baca was the owner of “The Great Wall” archive and was not paid by SPARC to produce that work.

“Nonetheless, following the sale, and although Judy was not required to do so, she generously donated $521,000 to SPARC,” Flores wrote.

Galindo and other former employees also expressed concern about Baca’s rising salary and believe it is out of proportion with SPARC’s mission of uplifting and aiding underserved communities and youth. In the two years prior to receiving the Mellon grant, Baca made $42,916 and $50,000, respectively. The year after SPARC received the grant, Baca’s salary rose to $215,000. In 2023, she made $236,149, and the following year, $211,004. The increase in Baca’s salary is discussed in an internal email and executive board meeting minutes reviewed by The Times, which state that SPARC’s board voted to set Baca’s annual compensation to be commensurate with what Baca was paid before she retired as a UCLA professor and that the additional money should come from the Mellon grant. Records of her 2025 and 2026 salaries were not currently available.

“The Great Wall of Los Angeles” depicts the history of California through the 1950s. An expansion to be completed in 2028 will add scenes from the 1960s to 1990s.

(Carlin Stiehl/For The Times)

SPARC said in a statement that Baca’s salary “is lower than the market rate for similar non-profit CEOs and lower than the market value commissioning rate for artist Judy Baca who is the author of The Great Wall Mural.”

Ongoing work on “The Great Wall” is currently done by a variety of people. For the new panels, which begin with the civil rights era of the 1960s, research is done by Baca and her team from the Great Wall Institute (there is currently no institute director, according to SPARC’s website). From there, Baca creates rough drawings, and drafts are made by artists from SPARC’s Digital/Mural Lab. Baca suggests edits and gives directions, and later she will add her own personal touches.

Eventually, colorations are submitted by various artists, and Baca does one final hand coloration of the entire piece. During The Times’ visit to see the mural expansion in progress, two artists were painting on sketches that had been fine-tuned by Baca and printed onto giant panels. These panels will eventually be attached to the wall of the flood water channel where “The Great Wall” resides, Flores said.

Former SPARC digital mural artist Toria Maldonado alleged it was not always clear if the work they were doing was for SPARC or for Judy Baca Inc. They were asked on occasion to work on assignments that appeared to be for the benefit of the latter, Maldonado said.

Maldonado said they and two other SPARC employees once redrew the 1960s segment of “The Great Wall” for a private collector. Baca, Maldonado said, “was selling a print, and wanted to refine it, and had us do that assignment.” Maldonado shared a checklist with The Times featuring notes about what work needed to be done on the segment, including shading Malcolm X’s hair.

In an email, Flores called Maldonado’s allegations, “factually inaccurate” and “misleading.”

“Judy was the owner of the segment referenced. It was hand-colored by Judy and assistants whom Judy paid personally, and this work was done in her personal studio,” Flores wrote. Baca’s studio is a Frank Gehry-designed space at her Venice home.

Maldonado said that they had never been to Baca’s personal studio and that their salary was always paid through SPARC.

From May through August 2023, segments of “The Great Wall” were exhibited at Jeffrey Deitch Gallery in L.A. Baca didn’t sell any works during that show, Flores wrote in an email, but in 2025, “a coloration by Judy’s hand of a segment presented in that show was sold. This work was created in Judy’s private studio and owned by her.” Baca declined to disclose how much the segment sold for. SPARC began showing more of “The Great Wall” expansion in February at Jeffrey Deitch Gallery. The original panels will not be for sale, but “if a work of Judy’s is sold at the show, she receives the proceeds as the owner of the work,” Flores wrote.

The room where art happens

Galindo and Garcia also alleged that SPARC inappropriately leases its premises to board member Gertz and others.

Since 1977, SPARC has been housed in a former Venice police station and jail, a 1920s Art Deco building owned by the city of Los Angeles. In 2000, the city signed a lease allowing SPARC to use the building for free until 2055. That agreement stipulates the property be used for “production, exhibition, promotion and distribution of and education about public art on a nonprofit basis.” SPARC can sublease portions of its building to those engaged in similar work with a city official’s approval. It must submit annual financial reports to the city with earnings from such deals.

The Times reviewed Instagram posts made by Gertz touting a 2023 exhibition of her personal art at SPARC, another in 2024 advertising a holiday sale, as well as one that shows her working in her studio inside the building. SPARC said Gertz pays market rate for her studio but declined to specify how much that is, only that it is, “equivalent to the rent paid by all the other artists who sublet space in the building.”

Judy Baca outside her Venice nonprofit, the Social and Public Art Resource Center, better known as SPARC, in 2021.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

According to documents obtained through a California Public Records Act request, the city only has one sublease on file for SPARC from 1991. When asked if the city had approved SPARC’s deal with Gertz, Amy Benson, the director of the city’s real estate services division, wrote in an email that she had no further information to provide.

Flores wrote in an email that she was unable to speak to the specifics of a question about whether or not SPARC submits annual financial reports, inclusive of its subleasing income, to the city but noted, “we will follow up to make sure that the City has the documents you mention.” According to the latest available tax filings, SPARC made $64,991 in “rental property income” in 2024 and $57,590 in 2023.

Asked if Gertz’s use of SPARC for her personal, for-profit art practice, violates SPARC’s understanding of the lease, Flores wrote, “Our understanding is that our lease allows any use of the premises that is reasonably consistent with our nonprofit mission… Ms. Gertz uses her studio to weave textiles and also to lead art workshops for immigrants in the community, an activity that we think is entirely in keeping with our mission.”

Baca has also sold her personal art for profit at SPARC. When Baca’s art is for sale she “is treated like all other artists” and receives 60% of profits, the nonprofit said in a statement.

According to SPARC’s website, of the eight exhibits presented by SPARC in Venice and at Bergamot Station since 2022, five showcased Baca’s work, including on “The Great Wall,” and one featured work by Gertz. The remaining two shows accounted for roughly five months of programming in more than three years.

“I’m certain there are hundreds of artists in Los Angeles making socially engaged work who would benefit from a solo exhibition at SPARC,” Galindo wrote in an email.

Feb. 18 (Asia Today) — An alleged financial link between a National Intelligence Service employee and a graduate student accused of sending a drone to North Korea has fueled questions about oversight and accountability within South Korea’s intelligence community, an Asia Today columnist wrote Tuesday.

The case surfaced last month when authorities disclosed that a man in his 30s had allegedly sent an unmanned aerial vehicle to North Korea. Initial investigations focused on possible involvement by the Army Intelligence Command.

However, political and intelligence sources cited in the column questioned why the National Intelligence Service, widely regarded as the control tower of South Korea’s intelligence apparatus, was not initially central to the probe.

The controversy deepened when investigators said an NIS Grade 8 employee had engaged in financial transactions with the graduate student. A joint military-police task force reportedly applied charges including general treason, a serious offense involving harm to national military interests or aiding an enemy state.

The NIS said the matter involved “a personal financial transaction by an administrative department employee” and denied any organizational link to North Korea-related operations. The agency argued that without proof of institutional involvement, the actions of an individual cannot be attributed to the entire organization.

The columnist wrote that regardless of whether the agency was formally involved, sustained contact and financial dealings between an intelligence officer and a suspect in a North Korea-related case raise concerns that go beyond individual misconduct.

The commentary also questioned whether internal control systems functioned properly and whether warning signs were missed. It noted that less than two years have passed since a separate intelligence leak involving a civilian employee at the military intelligence service.

The writer argued that the issue ultimately points to the broader condition of South Korea’s intelligence oversight system and called for a thorough investigation to address public doubts.

— 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=20260218010005525

PHILADELPHIA — In the first one-on-one debate of the 1988 Democratic presidential campaign, front-runner Michael S. Dukakis and his sole remaining adversary, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, both contended Friday night that it was too soon to discuss whether Dukakis should ask Jackson to be his running mate.

But the fact that the subject came up several times during the hourlong televised encounter, in advance of Tuesday’s presidential primary here in the Keystone State, reflected the degree to which Gov. Dukakis’ victory in the contest is widely considered all but assured. At the same time, the questions about Jackson’s becoming the first black to run on the national ticket of a major party were a measure of the impact the civil rights leader has had on the Democratic campaign.

‘Are You Interested?’

For their own differing reasons–Jackson because he is unwilling to have his presidential candidacy written off and Dukakis because he is leery of overconfidence–both men sought to dismiss the idea. Nevertheless, Dukakis twice during the debate leaned over to Jackson when the subject of the vice presidency was raised and asked: “Are you interested?”

While his comments brought laughter, as they were intended to, they also will inevitably fan speculation about what is certain to become the preoccupation of the two candidates and other Democratic leaders until the Atlanta convention in July is concluded.

When he was asked if he would accept an offer from Dukakis, Jackson said: “It’s a bit premature to be giving out coronation roses for the governor and taps for me.”

Jackson asserted that he and Dukakis were really in a “neck-and-neck contest,” contending that he trailed the governor by only about 170,000 votes after weeks of campaigning and made plain that he was not prepared to call it quits.

Pride of Accomplishment

“We’re sitting here side by side,” Jackson said of himself and Dukakis at one point, signaling not only his pride at what he had accomplished but his determination to press on. “But we’re not equal because I’ve come from furthest back to get here.”

And when Dukakis was asked about his ability to run well in the South, as a Northeastern governor, Jackson interjected: “With Mike Dukakis on my ticket we will win the South.”

Dukakis, when asked if he would choose Jackson to be his running mate, said: “My job right now is to work hard to win this nomination, and it is by no means won.”

In their first encounter since last Tuesday’s New York primary effectively eliminated Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. from the race and significantly fattened Dukakis’ lead in the race for delegates, both candidates aimed most of their shots past each other at the Reagan Administration and at the presumptive Republican standard-bearer, Vice President George Bush.

Thus when he was questioned about his plans to expand industry in Pennsylvania and other states that are in worse economic shape than his own Massachusetts, Dukakis criticized Reagan for threatening to veto the trade bill passed Thursday by the House because of its provision requiring a 60-day advance notice of plant shutdowns or layoffs.

Hits Reagan on Terrorism

And he also used a question on terrorism to condemn the Reagan Administration for trying to trade arms to Iran in the hope of gaining the release of U.S. hostages as “the worst possible thing we could have done.”

And Jackson attacked the Reagan Administration for its dealings with Panamanian strongman Manuel A. Noriega, whom he denounced as a drug dealer, and for what he charged was its general ineffectiveness in combatting drugs.

In one of the rare occasions that either of the two Democrats challenged each other, Jackson pressed Dukakis on whether the governor would apply his terrorist policy to South Africa after Dukakis said he would never negotiate with terrorists, even to save the lives of hostages and also said that if necessary he would order military strikes against terrorist base camps and support bases in other countries.

“If we are serious about international terrorism,” Dukakis said, the United States might have to launch such strikes. “I think a President who is serious about this,” Dukakis said, “can work with our allies and the international community to mount a very serious effort against terrorism.”

Questioned on South Africa

Jackson then contended that South Africa had committed aggression against several of the “front-line” African states on its borders and, declaring that such tactics amounted to “state terrorism,” asked Dukakis what his response would be.

Dukakis said he would be “very tough” on South Africa and would impose economic sanctions against that country but refused to say whether he would take military action.

Jackson also subtly needled Dukakis after the governor took credit for the prosperity in Massachusetts, which he referred to as “an economic miracle.”

Jackson noted that Dukakis and Massachusetts had the advantage of substantial federal investment and said that Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, who was in attendance at the debate sponsored by the state Democratic Party, “could have a boom too” under similar conditions.

WASHINGTON — Since a government raid near Waco, Tex., turned into a fiery disaster two years ago, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno has steadfastly defended her decision to storm the besieged compound of the Branch Davidian religious sect and cited a need to rescue the 24 children inside from unsafe and worsening conditions.

But as the episode becomes the focus of renewed attention in the nation’s capital and beyond, fresh questions are centering on certain tactics used by federal agents–specifically the firing of hundreds of rounds of a military-style tear gas into the camp–that may themselves have endangered the children.

At 6:02 a.m. on April 19, 1993, following a 51-day standoff, FBI agents in military tanks advanced from siege lines around the Branch Davidian compound and fired volleys of CS gas inside the buildings to immobilize the heavily armed occupants.

The wooden structures were filled with the gas over the next six hours before the building erupted into flames, leaving more than 80 people dead, including all of the children. Before giving the order to advance, Reno said, she was assured by military experts that CS gas would cause no serious harm or permanent damage to the children of the besieged cult members.

However, it is now clear that medical literature and manufacturers’ warnings available at the time dispute that conclusion.

CS gas is potentially so hazardous when applied in confined spaces that California prison guards are cautioned against using it in the cells of unruly inmates. A Sherman Oaks company suspended sales of CS to the Israeli government in 1988 at the same time Amnesty International linked the gas to the deaths of Palestinians in homes and other buildings in the occupied territories.

Although adults can withstand CS exposure by wearing gas masks, and the Branch Davidian compound was well stocked with military equipment, no masks were available to properly fit children.

“All of those young children who breathed that gas for hours and didn’t have masks would have been in intensive care if they had survived,” said Dr. Alan A. Stone, a Harvard University professor of law and psychiatry who was chosen by the Justice Department to review its performance at Waco and only recently began to speak out. “This seems so clear and apparent that it’s hard for me to imagine how the attorney general, who I have great respect for, could have OKd this.”

The official cause of death for the children, whose bodies were badly burned in the blaze, could not be determined. Smoke inhalation was a leading possibility. However, autopsy records also show that some of the victim’s bodies contained cyanide, a chemical emitted when CS gas–and other substances such as plastic–are heated in a fire. Many of the toddlers and infants may have been overcome by the gas before they died, some experts believe.

In contrast, a government specialist in riot-control agents who requested anonymity said scientific studies indicate that it would be “almost virtually impossible” for large quantities of CS to severely injure any of the Davidians, including the 17 children under age 10. And Justice Department officials say they doubt that many, if any, Davidians breathed significant amounts of CS because of strong winds that whipped through large holes knocked in the building by tank-mounted battering rams to insert the gas.

*

Controversy surrounding the Branch Davidian incident has been fanned by the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, the second anniversary of the Waco blaze. The leading suspect in the fatal attack on the federal building, Timothy J. McVeigh, reportedly considered the Waco siege an example of government’s intention to crush individual liberties, particularly the right to bear arms.

He is not alone. Some conservatives and civil libertarians question whether the full story of the government’s actions at Waco has come to light. At least two congressional committees plan to hold hearings into the Branch Davidian incident this summer.

Officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which conducted the initial raid at Waco to serve search warrants related to weapons violations, maintain they have learned painful lessons from their mistakes and adopted changes to ensure they are not repeated.

But the Justice Department has denied being at fault, instead blaming the loss of life solely on Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, who was suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons.

“There is much to be angry about when we talk about Waco, and the government’s conduct is not the reason,” Reno told a gathering of federal law enforcement officers this month. “David Koresh is the reason.”

Henry Ruth, a former federal prosecutor who served on the independent board that reviewed the ATF’s actions, said he found the Justice Department’s review of Waco full of glowing appraisals.

“That is appalling to me when children die in a fire and there is a precedent for it,” said Ruth, citing the five children who burned to death in 1985 when authorities dropped a bomb on the MOVE community building in West Philadelphia. “When they don’t learn their lessons, are children going to die the next time?”

The FBI was called in on Feb. 28, 1993, to resolve an exceedingly difficult situation at the Branch Davidians’ compound after the ATF raid there went awry. As ATF agents stormed the compound, armed cult members opened fire, killing four officers and five Branch Davidian members. After negotiating a cease-fire with Koresh, the FBI decided that its principal goal was gaining the release of the children inside, according to the Justice Department review of the incident.

Koresh sent out 21 children and 14 adults through March 23. But the releases stopped, and he showed no willingness to surrender.

*

As weeks passed, the uncertainty about the outcome began to mount. The FBI’s longest previous standoff had lasted four days. When the Waco encounter entered its second month, the situation became more “dangerous” because of the difficulty in maintaining security around such a large area and because the FBI’s hostage rescue team was exhausted and in need of retraining, Reno said. The FBI had no backup unit.

On the 22nd day, FBI officials recommended using tear gas to clear the compound. Three weeks later, on April 12, the attorney general was briefed on the FBI’s proposal to use CS gas.

In meetings with military experts, Reno was reassured that the plan to drive out the Branch Davidians with gradual applications of CS gas was safe. They referred to cases of children who had completely recovered within hours of being exposed to CS with no long-term effects.

Reno spent more time weighing the merits of the gassing strategy than any other issue at Waco, said Justice Department spokesman Carl Stern. Among those she consulted was Harry Salem, a toxicologist at the Army’s Chemical and Biological Defense Command.

Reno was advised that although no laboratory tests measuring the effects of CS gas on children had been performed, “anecdotal evidence was convincing” that there would be no permanent injury, according to the Justice Department report. “The military personnel made Reno feel more confident with the concept of tear gas, as opposed to the original concept in her mind of ‘gassing,’ ” the report said.

Salem declined to be interviewed. In written responses to questions submitted by The Times, Salem wrote that CS can be used indoors as long as safety ratios are not exceeded. Achieving lethal concentrations of CS, Salem wrote, would be “extremely difficult.”

After the Waco standoff’s fiery end, Stone, one of the experts retained by the Justice Department to examine what happened, specifically requested the briefing materials Salem provided to Reno. Stone said he was furnished a copy of a 1971 report by the British government that advocated CS as a crowd-control agent in open-air settings.

“There was nothing the attorney general was given in her material and nothing I was ever given which addressed the problem of CS gas in a closed space,” Stone said.

Stone issued a scathing 33-page report in November, 1993, which the Justice Department declined to make available, that criticized the decision to deploy CS gas. In the Justice Department report, Stone wrote, there is no mention during Reno’s deliberations that young children do not have the lung capacity to use gas masks.

“I find it hard to accept a deliberate plan to insert CS gas . . . in a building with so many children,” Stone wrote. “It certainly makes it more difficult to believe that the health and safety of the children was our primary concern.”

Reno has discounted Stone’s criticism, saying he lacks expertise in the field of toxicology.

The danger of applying CS in enclosed spaces is spelled out in an array of medical literature and manufacturers’ reports, including the Army’s guidelines on civil disturbances. Army Field Manual FM 19-15, published in 1985, warns that CS “is not to be used in buildings, near hospitals or in areas where lingering contamination could cause problems.”

Kelly Donahue, spokeswoman for Federal Laboratories Inc., which produces CS gas, said the chemical is designed for use in a large, open area. “If you were to shoot too much in a building or enclosed area, you could suffocate individuals.”

*

CS takes its name from two scientists, B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton, who invented it in 1928. The chemical, ortho-chlorobenzal malononitrile, is considered a “super tear gas” because it works instantly, causing burning eyes, coughing, breathing difficulty, stinging skin and vomiting. Though it is commonly referred to as a tear gas, CS is actually a white crystal that looks like talcum powder. In 1959, the Army adopted CS as its standard riot-control agent, and the chemical was used extensively in the Vietnam War.

The widespread use of CS by South Korea on hundreds of thousands of civilians in 1987 was researched by the Physicians for Human Rights group. After discovering that civilians suffered serious acute illnesses, sometimes with permanent injury, the group called for banning the use of CS on humans.

“Exposure to high concentrations of tear gas in small, enclosed spaces for 10 minutes is potentially lethal, particularly to infants and children. . . ,” the organization concluded.

High levels of CS exposure have led to heart failure and death in adults, according to a 1989 report in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. The principal author of the study, Dr. Howard Hu of Harvard University Medical School, said he would have strongly recommended against firing CS into the Branch Davidian compound if there was any chance the occupants would remain inside.

*

In the days leading up to the assault, FBI officials told the attorney general they planned to introduce the CS gradually over two or three days. They hoped to force the Davidians out the front door by using gas at opposite ends of the compound.

But the tear-gas raid on April 19 was anything but gradual.

Within minutes of the initial delivery of two bottles of CS, the Davidians fired automatic weapons at the military armored vehicle, according to the Justice Department report. Two M-60 tanks and four Bradley fighting vehicles responded by launching an all-out assault on all areas of the building. Under the plan approved by Reno, the FBI was authorized to escalate the gassing operation if the tanks encountered resistance.

By 6:31 a.m., half an hour after the mission began, the entire building had been filled with CS. The rest of the morning, the FBI continued to deliver gas volleys through all openings of the residential structure to increase the pressure on the occupants.

The attack was so rapid that the tanks quickly exhausted the supply of tear-gas canisters that was to last for several days. At 7:45 a.m., senior FBI officials requested additional rounds of CS from field offices around the country. By the time the final gas volleys were fired at 11:40 a.m., the Bradley tanks had fired at least 300 rounds at the building and the M-60 combat vehicles had made six gas injections.

*

Clive Doyle was inside the chapel when an M-60 tank burst through the front door spraying CS and as additional so-called ferret rounds from the Bradley vehicles landed through the windows. While most Davidians in the chapel had gas masks, Doyle said, they only worked for about half an hour before the filters started to fail. He said there were screams as the gas burned the skin of some people and left others gasping.

“The ferret rounds were almost like rockets,” said Doyle, 54, who lived at the compound off and on for nearly three decades and was acquitted of all charges at the Branch Davidian trial last year.

“They crashed through windows, came whistling past your head and embedded themselves in the wall,” he said. “You could hear them hissing once they broke open. We were praying to God that somehow we would be delivered.”

Doyle said there was “no doubt” the gas poured into an aboveground concrete bunker where the women and children had retreated. The 20-by-21-foot bunker, which had been used as a locked vault and food cooler, was waist-deep in stored ammunition.

“The children had no protection from [the gas] being sprayed because there were no windows or major holes,” Doyle said. “I can imagine it was agonizing for them without gas masks and being in a cul-de-sac part of the building with no wind.”

FBI officials offered a contrasting view. They say that any suggestion that CS could have worked its way through rooms into the bunker is highly improbable.

“They probably would not have had to don gas masks or shed one tear from the CS that would have entered that bunker,” said the government specialist on tear gas.

The charred remains of children, including at least 10 who were younger than 3, were found in the bunker along with 13 women, seven men and a fetus. Coroner’s investigators determined that mothers put wet blankets around the children and held them in their arms before they died.

Given the large quantities of CS pumped into the building, it would have been very difficult for children to have walked out to safety, as envisioned by the FBI plan, some experts say.

“The kids would never have made it,” said George F. Uhlig, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and professor of chemistry at the College of Eastern Utah who has researched the use of CS at Waco. “Eventually you pump in enough gas and you exclude breathing.”

An arson investigation team compiled by the Texas State Rangers found that the ensuing fire that engulfed the compound was deliberately set by one or more people inside the building. The team concluded that the fire was not caused or spread by any chemicals used in the gassing operation.

It is unclear how many Davidians inhaled the CS gas, according to the Justice Department report. The passage of at least an hour between the last gas attacks and the end of the fire would have allowed evidence of the gas to dissipate in the bodies.

“It is impossible to predict what role CS played in this case,” said Dr. Nizam Peerwani, chief medical examiner of Tarrant County, Tex., whose office performed the toxicological tests on the bodies.

While the criticism has mounted, the Justice Department has held firm that the use of the CS was appropriate. Within the past two weeks, Reno went back to Salem to ask him about the safety of CS gas, according to Justice Department spokesman Stern.

“He hasn’t changed his thinking at all,” Stern said.

Times staff writer Ronald J. Ostrow contributed to this story.