trump

WASHINGTON — When President Trump announced that he was taking the United States to war against Iran, he offered a long list of ambitious goals.

He said the operation aimed not only to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but also to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles and defang its proxy forces in the Middle East.

Then he added the most audacious objective of all: regime change.

“To the great, proud people of Iran … the hour of your freedom is at hand,” he said. “Take over your government. It will be yours to take.”

That was a striking turnabout for Trump, who campaigned for president in 2016 promising: “We’re going to stop the reckless and costly policy of regime change.”

But it’s far from clear that the president has a coherent plan for replacing Iran’s radical Islamist autocracy with a friendlier regime. Nor is it clear that he’s fully committed to the goal.

On Monday, at a White House event, Trump reiterated the military goals of the operation, but did not mention regime change — suggesting he may be having second thoughts. However, he did describe the current Iranian regime as “sick and sinister.”

Military experts and Iran scholars are virtually unanimous that airstrikes alone, no matter how destructive, are unlikely to transform the Islamic republic into a peaceable, democratic country.

“Air power rarely produces friendly regime change,” said Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago, a prominent scholar of air power. “Bombing can destroy targets. It does not reliably reshape politics.”

A more likely outcome is that Iran’s militant Islamic security force, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, will seize power, experts said. The Washington Post has reported that the CIA also made that assessment before the war began.

A takeover by the Revolutionary Guard would change the names of the people in charge, but it would fall far short of a genuine regime change.

Trump has said he doesn’t believe ground troops will be necessary, although he hasn’t ruled them out. He hasn’t offered a plan for pushing Iran’s theocratic rulers out of power beyond continuing the airstrikes. The outcome on the ground, he said Sunday, is up to ordinary Iranians.

“Be brave, be bold, be heroic and take back your country,” he said in a video message on Sunday. “America is with you. I made a promise to you, and I fulfilled that promise. The rest will be up to you, but we’ll be there to help.”

In an interview with the New York Times, he said he hopes the Revolutionary Guard will simply “surrender” to the opposition forces it was brutalizing only a month ago.

In effect, he is abandoning the so-called Pottery Barn rule — “You break it, you own it” — that was popularized by then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell before the Iraq war in 2003. Trump’s message to Iranians looks like: “I’ll break it, you own it.”

Iran’s democratic opposition is fragmented

The central problem with Trump’s apparent theory of regime change, scholars say, is that the Revolutionary Guard and other security services are well-organized and well-equipped, but the country’s democratic opposition is fragmented.

“Even if the clerical regime were to fall, the security forces are best positioned to take its place,” warned Richard N. Haass, a former top State Department official in the George W. Bush administration.

Meanwhile, he added, “the political opposition is not united or functioning as a government-in-waiting. It is not in a position to accept defections [from the regime], much less provide security.”

Some experts argue that there is more the administration could be doing to improve the prospects for regime change, without putting troops on the ground.

Haass faulted the Trump administration for failing to work more closely with the Iranian opposition to prepare it for a role in a potential future government.

Others said the United States should now make it clear that it would provide substantial economic aid to a new Iranian regime, but only if its behavior is benign. Iran’s economic crisis, its worst in recent history, helped spark the popular uprising in January that the regime suppressed at the cost of thousands in lives.

“There are more steps the administration could be taking now to help the democratic opposition,” said Kelly Shannon, a visiting scholar at George Washington University. “Close coordination with dissidents on the ground. Protection from the security forces if they open fire. Money, including support for a general strike fund. Assistance with ensuring internet access for all Iranians. And ensure that airstrikes don’t hit Evin Prison or other prisons where dissidents are being held; a lot of potential opposition leaders are in there.”

Scenarios for the future

If the Revolutionary Guard remains intact, Iran experts have described several different scenarios for the regime that may emerge.

One might be called the Venezuela scenario: an Iran ruled by officers from the current regime who have agreed to cooperate to some extent with the United States. This would resemble the situation in Venezuela, where the United States captured President Nicolás Maduro but left the rest of his regime in power.

Trump has already endorsed that quick-fix scenario and said he’s willing to open talks with the newly named successors to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike. “What we did in Venezuela, I think, is the perfect, the perfect scenario,” he told the New York Times.

Another option might be called the Hamas scenario: a battered and weakened Islamic Republic could stay in power but remain hostile to the United States, even after losing much of its military infrastructure.

A third possibility would be the Libya scenario: an Iran in which the regime has been toppled, and several factions battle for power. That’s what happened in Libya after the United States and other countries used air power to help overthrow longtime dictator Moammar Kadafi.

But none of those scenarios would be the transition to democracy that many Iranians hope for — the more positive version of regime change.

Trump’s search for offramps

Trump, meanwhile, sounds as if he is already looking for an opportunity to declare victory and withdraw.

In an interview with Axios on Saturday, he said he believes he has several “offramps” from the war.

“I can go long and take over the whole thing — or end it in two or three days and tell the Iranians, ‘See you again in a few years.’”

“He seems to be looking for an offramp,” Haass said. “He may say ‘It’s up to the Iranian people’ and leave the opposition to its fate…. He might claim a victory in terms of obliterating — or, I guess, ‘re-obliterating’ — Iran’s nuclear program and downgrading its ballistic missiles.”

“But he would still face a danger in that scenario. If it comes down to a physical confrontation [between the regime and the opposition], the opposition could be killed in even larger numbers before. … After offering regime change as one of the reasons for the war, we may not only fail to produce regime change; we could see a second massacre.”

U.S. President Donald Trump says that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been killed. Khamenei was among a number of senior Iranian officials targeted in the initial wave of U.S.-Israeli strikes earlier today.

Readers can first get caught up on the ongoing conflict in our previous rolling coverage here.

“Khamenei, one of the most evil people in History, is dead. This is not only Justice for the people of Iran, but for all Great Americans, and those people from many Countries throughout the World, that have been killed or mutilated by Khamenei and his gang of bloodthirsty THUGS,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social social media network. “He was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do.”

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

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

• Share via Close extra sharing options

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

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

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

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

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

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

James B. Milliken.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

Trump and higher education

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

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

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

James B. Milliken.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

Educational access

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

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

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

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

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Milliken pledged to protect immigrants.

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

Lifelong learning

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

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

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

The university’s future and evolution

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

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

• Share via Close extra sharing options

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

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

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

New research funding state bond bill

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

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

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

More from The Times’ interview with Milliken:

• Share via Close extra sharing options

A poll conducted in the hours after the United States and Israel launched a major military operation against Iran, sparking regional retaliation, shows dismal approval for the strikes from the US public.

The Reuters Ipsos poll was conducted beginning on Saturday and closing on Sunday, before the administration of President Donald Trump announced that the first US troops had been killed in the conflict. Only one in four respondents approved of the US-Israeli attacks.

The early findings could have a significant effect on how the Trump administration moves forward in the days ahead and on how lawmakers respond to the attacks, particularly as they look to a punishing midterm election season.

Trump on Sunday promised to continue what he described as a “righteous mission” until “all objectives are achieved”. Referencing the three US military members announced killed on Sunday, Trump said that “there will likely be more before it ends”.

After a US-Israeli strike killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump again framed Iran as an existential threat to the US, claiming that the country’s leaders “have waged war against civilization itself”.

The Reuters-Ipsos poll suggested that the US public does not share that view, with 43 percent of respondents saying they disapproved of the war and another 29 percent saying they were unsure.

Approval among Republicans was stronger, but not resounding, with 55 percent saying they approved of the strikes, 13 percent disapproving and 32 percent unsure.

Perhaps most significantly, about 42 percent of Republicans said they would be less likely to support the operation if it led to “US troops in the Middle East being killed or injured”.

About 74 percent of Democrats disapproved of the strike, with 7 percent approving and 19 percent unsure.

Midterms loom

The poll released on Sunday comes as Republican lawmakers have largely coalesced around Trump’s message on Iran, even as its contradiction to Trump’s campaign promises risks alienating his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base.

Trump had run on a pledge to cease “endless wars” and halt US interventionism abroad in an “America First” pivot.

While Trump has shown a unique ability to shape the views of his staunchest supporters in his likeness, some conservative commentators have warned that he is playing with fire.

“If this war is a swift, easy, and decisive victory, most of them will get over it,” Blake Neff, a former producer for late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, wrote on X on Saturday.

“But if the war is anything else, there will be a lot of anger.”

He added that “success can override bad explanations. So we must pray for success.”

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said the confirmation that US soldiers had been killed “brings home the cost of the war”.

“Americans, by a very large margin, don’t want to be tied up in an ongoing conflict in the Middle East,” he said during a television interview. “The fact that Americans have died suddenly shows this is not just a video game from the standpoint of America.”

Beyond the three US military personnel killed, at least 201 people have been killed in Iran, nine in Israel, two in Iraq, three in the United Arab Emirates and one in Kuwait.

Meanwhile, 45 percent of respondents to the Reuters-Ipsos poll, including 34 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of independents, said they would be less likely to support the campaign against Iran if gas or oil prices increased in the US.

The conflict has threatened arterial trade routes, with several companies suspending shipments in the area.

Democrats will also be keeping a close eye on public sentiment on the war, which will surely hang over the campaign season ahead of the midterm elections in November.

The party has made affordability a key issue, with incumbents and upstart challengers alike portraying Trump’s military adventurism, which has also included the US abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, as out of touch with his messaging.

Elected Democrats, meanwhile, have given a range of responses to the US operation against Iran, with at least one Democratic senator praising Trump’s strikes. Others celebrated Khamenei’s killing, but remained more circumspect on Trump’s justification for the attacks, while several others were forthright in condemning the strikes.

Several Democrats on Sunday said the killing of US soldiers underscored the urgency of passing a war powers resolution, which would require approval from Congress before further military action is taken.

“I’m thinking of the brave American soldiers killed today,” Senator Chris Van Hollen, a proponent of the resolution, posted on X on Sunday. “They should still be with us.”

“Trump said he would keep us out of war. This is his war of choice.”

A vote on the resolution is expected early this week.

WASHINGTON — President Trump, his Treasury secretary and his choice to lead the Federal Reserve believe they can coax the U.S. economy back to a boom reminiscent of the 1990s.

They are putting their faith in artificial intelligence to duplicate what happened when another technology arrived during the Clinton era: the internet. Back then, the American economy surged as businesses became more productive, unemployment tumbled and inflation remained in check.

Trump expresses confidence that his nominee to become Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, can unleash an economic bonanza by jettisoning what the president sees as the central bank’s hidebound reluctance to slash interest rates.

Many economists are skeptical.

The world looks a lot different today than it did when the Spice Girls ruled radio and “Titanic’’ dominated the box office. And the story the Trump team is telling — that a visionary Fed chair, Alan Greenspan, fueled the 1990s boom by keeping interest rates low — is incomplete at best.

“The administration is offering a rather distorted version of what actually happened in the 1990s,’’ economist Dario Perkins of TS Lombard said in a commentary.

Nonetheless, the Trump administration believes history can repeat itself. All that’s been missing, Trump says, is a Fed chair with Greenspan’s foresightedness.

AI’s influence over interest rates

Trump has repeatedly attacked current Fed chief Jerome H. Powell, whose term as chair ends in May, for his caution in lowering rates while inflation hovers above the central bank’s 2% target. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on social media in January that the president sought to replace Powell with someone with “an open, Greenspan-like mind.”

“Our nation can see productivity boom like we did in the ’90s when we are not encumbered by a Federal Reserve which throws the brakes on,’’ Bessent wrote.

On Jan. 30, Trump said he was picking Warsh.

In speeches and writings, Warsh has argued that AI-driven improvements in productivity could justify lower interest rates.

These views align with Trump’s desires for Fed rate cuts but mark a break with Warsh’s past as an inflation hawk.

In the aftermath of the 2007-09 Great Recession, Warsh — then a Fed governor — objected to some of the central bank’s efforts to help the struggling economy by pushing down rates even though unemployment exceeded 9%. He warned then, wrongly, that inflation would soon accelerate.

At issue now are gains in productivity and the possibility that AI will make them bigger — much bigger.

To economists, productivity improvements are almost magical. When companies roll out new machines or technology, their workers can become more efficient and produce more stuff per hour. That enables firms to earn more and to raise employees’ pay without raising prices. In short: Surging productivity can drive economic growth without spurring inflation.

Greenspan and the internet

In the mid-1990s, Greenspan was contending with a strange set of economic circumstances: Wages were rising but inflation wasn’t heating up.

Big productivity gains might have explained things, but government data showed no sign of them. Other Fed policymakers worried that surging wages and tame inflation couldn’t coexist and that higher prices were coming. They wanted to raise interest rates.

But Greenspan suspected that the official productivity numbers were missing something. For one thing, they didn’t jibe with the amazing tales of efficiency improvements the Fed was hearing from companies investing in computers and turning to the internet.

So he ordered his lieutenants to dig through decades of productivity numbers. The official statistics they assembled told an implausible story: Services firms — including retailers and legal practices — had supposedly seen productivity fall over the years, despite intense competitive pressure and massive investments in technology.

Greenspan didn’t believe it. He persuaded his Fed colleagues that the government’s numbers were wrong and were understating productivity. They agreed in September 1996 to hold off on raising rates.

The economy took flight.

Tardily, productivity advances began to show up in the official data. Overall, American economic growth surpassed 4% every year from 1997 through 2000, something it would do again only once in the next quarter century. The unemployment rate plunged to 3.8% in April 2000, the lowest in three decades. Inflation stayed in its cage, coming in below 2% — later the Fed’s official target — for 17 straight months in 1997-99.

History repeats itself … maybe?

American productivity looked strong in the second and third quarters of 2025, and some economists attribute the improvements to the early adoption of AI; they see bigger gains and stronger economic growth ahead.

Others aren’t so sure.

Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at consulting firm RSM, wrote that the 2025 productivity improvements “are not because of artificial intelligence’’ but reflect investments in automation that companies made when they couldn’t find enough workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Those investments are starting to pay off,’’ Brusuelas wrote.

Economist Martin Baily, senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution, believes it will take time for AI to have a big effect on the way companies do business and on the nation’s productivity.

“Companies don’t change that fast,” said Baily, chair of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors during the boom era. “It’s expensive to change. It’s risky to change. The managers don’t necessarily understand the new technology that well. So they have to learn how to use it. They have to train their staff. All that stuff takes a long time.’’

A productivity boom can raise the economy’s speed limit — how fast it can grow without pushing prices higher. But it might not justify lower interest rates, Fed Gov. Michael Barr said in a speech last month.

Businesses will borrow to invest in AI, putting upward pressure on interest rates. Likewise, American workers and their families probably would save less and borrow more in anticipation of higher wages, the payoff for being more productive; that would put still more pressure on rates to rise.

Bottom line, Barr said: “The AI boom is unlikely to be a reason for lowering policy rates.’’

Even Greenspan’s Fed eventually came to the same conclusion, reversing course and starting to raise its benchmark rate in mid-1999, taking it from 4.75% to 6.5% in less than a year. (The rate Trump complains about now is around 3.6%.)

“Warsh and Bessent talk only about the dovish 1995/96 version of Greenspan; they overlook the hawkish 1999/2000 variant,’’ Perkins wrote.

Then and now

Many of Warsh’s potential future colleagues on the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee see the late-1990s experience differently than he does, setting up what could be a clash at the central bank if the Senate confirms Warsh as chair.

Austan Goolsbee, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said last week that “the analogy to the late ‘90s is a little harder for me to understand.” Greenspan’s insight was that productivity gains meant the Fed could hold off on raising rates, not that it should slash them, Goolsbee noted.

“It wasn’t, ‘Should we cut rates because productivity growth is higher?’” he said.

The economic backdrop that awaits Warsh is also far less friendly than the one Greenspan enjoyed.

Greenspan was avoiding rate hikes at a time when the usually profligate U.S. government was running rare budget surpluses and didn’t need to borrow so desperately. Now, after a series of spending hikes and tax cuts, deficits are piling up year after year, and the Congressional Budget Office expects federal debt to hit a historic high of 120% of America’s gross domestic product by 2035.

Nor was productivity the only thing controlling inflation in the 1990s. Countries were lowering tariffs and dismantling trade barriers. Immigration was surging.

Now, due largely to Trump’s policies, notably his sweeping taxes on imports and his crackdown on immigration, the world is much different. “Trade barriers are going up,’’ Perkins wrote. “Globalization has given way to de-globalization.’’

“That benign era is clearly behind us,’’ said Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.

Wiseman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump has pledged to continue the “righteous mission” against Iran, until “all objectives are achieved”, adding there will likely be more US troop deaths in the process.

Speaking in a video posted to his Truth Social account on Sunday, Trump again framed the war against Iran as a response to an existential threat to the US, saying that “an Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be a dire threat to every American”.

Trump and his top officials had repeatedly made similar statements in the run-up to Saturday’s attacks, which killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking members of the country’s leadership.

However, they have to date presented no evidence to support that Iran was developing a long-range missile capable of hitting the US or was anywhere close to developing a nuclear weapon.

Tehran has long denied seeking such a weapon, with experts assessing that if it did seek nuclear weapons, the development would still be several years off. The US launched its attacks alongside Israel in the middle of ongoing US-Iran talks on its nuclear programme.

Trump also referenced the three US military personnel confirmed killed on Sunday amid Iran’s regional retaliation.

“As one nation, we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, even as we continue the righteous mission for which they gave their lives,” Trump said.

“And sadly, there will likely be more before it ends,” he said. “That’s the way it is – likely be more, but we’ll do everything possible where that won’t be the case.”

He added: “But America will avenge their deaths, and deliver the most punishing blow to the terrorists who have waged war against, basically, civilisation”.

No mention of diplomacy

The speech marked a stark contrast to several interviews Trump had given throughout the day, in which he appeared to float diplomatic off-ramps.

“They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them,” Trump told the Atlantic magazine, referring to what the publication described as Iran’s “new leadership”.

“They should have given what was very practical and easy to do sooner. They waited too long,” he said.

A White House official confirmed to Al Jazeera that Trump was willing to engage with Iran’s new leaders.

Earlier on Sunday, Iran announced a three-member interim leadership council to run the government in the wake of Khamenei’s killing. It includes: President Masoud Pezeshkian; the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei; and a member of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Alireza Arafi.

Trump acknowledged that some of the negotiators involved in the talks with the US had since been killed.

Some analysts have argued that Iran’s new leadership will likely be wary of engaging with the Trump administration, given its track record. The US also launched attacks alongside Israel during US-Iran negotiations in June last year.

The new leadership could instead pursue a protracted conflict that could be politically damaging for Trump, some experts have said.

“Most of those people are gone,” Trump told The Atlantic. “Some of the people we were dealing with are gone, because that was a big – that was a big hit.”

Attacks continue

In his speech on Sunday, Trump did not reference any diplomatic overtures, instead calling for regime change in Iran.

He again offered amnesty to Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members, the Iranian military and police who “lay down” their arms. If they do not, they will face “certain death”, he said.

He also again called on “Iranian patriots who yearn for freedom to seize this moment to be brave, be bold, be heroic, and take back your country”.

He appeared to reference his threats in January to strike Iran in response to the government’s crackdown on protesters.

“I made a promise to you, and I fulfilled that promise,” Trump said. “The rest will be up to you. We’ll be there to help”.

Trump spoke as fighting continued across the region.

The US command that oversees the Middle East (CENTCOM) announced the killing of the three members of the US military earlier on Sunday, but did not provide further details. It said five others were “seriously wounded” in the operation.

The US media has reported that those killed in Iranian strikes were based in Kuwait. Iran has also launched a barrage of attacks against Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, and Oman.

Meanwhile, at least 201 people have been killed in Iran, with 747 wounded, while at least nine have been killed and 121 wounded in Israel.

At least one person has been killed in Kuwait, three have been killed in the UAE, and two have been killed in Iraq since the escalation began.

Iran’s IRGC said earlier on Sunday that it had targeted the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier with four ballistic missiles, but a US official told Al Jazeera that no damage was caused.

Speaking in a separate Fox News interview on Sunday, Trump said that 48 “leaders” had been killed in Iran, although a full list of those killed has not been released. In a post on Truth Social, the US president said the US had “destroyed and sunk 9 Iranian Naval Ships, some of them relatively large and important”.

“In a different attack, we largely destroyed their Naval Headquarters,” he said.

In a post on X, CENTCOM said the IRGC “no longer has a headquarters”.

Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi, meanwhile, said Iran’s military command had been interrupted, with units acting in an “independent and somewhat isolated” way. He said they were operating “based on general instructions given to them in advance”.

Still, Araghchi told ABC News, “We see no limit for ourselves to defend our people, to protect our people.”

According to President Trump, the United States attacked Iran because the Iranian regime posed “imminent threats” to the U.S. and its allies, including through its use of terrorist proxies and continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world,” he said in a recorded statement Saturday.

According to leading Democrats in Congress, Trump’s justification is questionable, especially given his claims of having “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities in separate U.S. bombings last year.

“Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and part of a small group of congressional leaders — the Gang of Eight — who were briefed on the operation by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

That divide is bound to remain an issue politically heading into this year’s midterm elections, and could be a liability for Republicans — especially considering that some in the “America First” wing of the MAGA base were raising their own objections, citing Trump’s 2024 campaign pledges to extricate the U.S. from foreign wars, not start new ones.

The debate echoed a similar if less immediate one around President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, also based on claims that “weapons of mass destruction” posed an immediate threat. Those claims were later disproved by multiple findings that Iraq had no such arsenal, fueling recriminations from both political parties for years.

The latest divide also intensified unease over Congress ceding its wartime powers to the White House, which for years has assumed sweeping authority to attack foreign adversaries without direct congressional input in the name of addressing terrorism or preventing immediate harm to the nation or its troops.

Even prior to the weekend bombings, Democrats including Sen. Adam Schiff of California were pushing Congress to pass a resolution barring the Trump administration from attacking Iran without explicit congressional authorization.

“President Trump must come to Congress before using military force unless absolutely necessary to defend the United States from an imminent attack,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the armed services and foreign relations committees, said in a statement Thursday.

In justifying the daylight strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei just two days later, Trump accused the Iranian government of having “waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder” for nearly half a century — including through attacks on U.S. military assets and commercial shipping vessels abroad — and of having “armed, trained and funded terrorist militias” in multiple countries, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Trump said that after the U.S. bombed Iran last summer, it had warned Tehran “never to resume” its pursuit of nuclear weapons. “Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland,” he said.

Other Republican leaders largely backed the president.

“The United States did not start this conflict, but we will finish it. If you kill or threaten Americans anywhere in the world — as Iran has — then we will hunt you down, and we will kill you,” said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“Every president has talked about the threat posed by the Iranian regime. President Trump is the one with the courage to take bold, decisive action,” said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

While Iran’s coordination with and sponsorship of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are well known, Trump’s claims about its ongoing development of nuclear weapons systems are less established — and the administration has provided little evidence to back them up.

Democrats seized on that lack of fresh intelligence in their responses to the attacks, contrasting Trump’s latest claims about imminent threats with his assertion after the separate summer bombings that the U.S. had all but eliminated Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

“Let’s be clear: The Iranian regime is horrible. But I have seen no imminent threat to the United States that would justify putting American troops in harm’s way,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the Gang of Eight. “What is the motivation here? Is it Iran’s nuclear program? Their missiles? Regime change?”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that the Trump administration “has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat,” and must do so.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Trump administration needs congressional authority to wage such attacks barring “exigent circumstances,” and didn’t have it.

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” he said.

After the U.S. military announced Sunday that three U.S. service personnel were killed and five others seriously wounded in the attacks, the demands for a clearer justification and new constraints on Trump only increased.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said Sunday he is optimistic that Democrats will be unified in trying to pass the war powers resolution, and also that some Republicans will join them, given that the strikes have been unpopular among a portion of the MAGA base.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who partnered with Khanna to force the release of the Epstein files, has said he will work with him again to push a congressional vote on war with Iran, which he said was “not ‘America First.’”

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said that whether or not Iran represented an “imminent” threat to the U.S. depends not just on its nuclear capabilities, but on its broader desire and ability to inflict pain on the U.S. and its allies — as was made clear to both the U.S. and Israel after the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which Iran praised.

“If you are Israel or the United States, that’s imminent,” he said.

What happens next, Radd said, will largely depend on whether remaining Iranian leaders stick to Khamenei’s hard-line policies, or decide to negotiate anew with the U.S. He expects they might do the latter, because “it’s a fundamentalist regime, it’s not a suicidal regime,” and it’s now clear that the U.S. and Israel have the capabilities to take out Iranian leaders, Iran has little ability to defend itself, and China and Russia are not rushing to its aid.

How the strikes are viewed moving forward may also depend on what those leaders decide to do next, said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute.

If the conflict remains relatively contained, it could become a political win for Trump, with questions about the justification falling away. But if it spirals out of control, such questions are only likely to grow, as occurred in Iraq when things started to deteriorate there, he said.

Israel and the U.S. are currently betting that the conflict will remain manageable, which could turn out to be true, Harris said, but “the problem with war is you never really know what might happen.”

On Sunday, Iran launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and the wider Gulf region. Trump said the campaign against Iran continued “unabated,” though he may be willing to negotiate with the nation’s new leaders. It was unclear when Congress might take up the war powers measure.

US President Donald Trump says Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in joint US-Israeli strikes. Israeli officials cite “growing signs” he’s dead. Iranian state media deny the claim, saying Khamenei remains in command. At least 201 reported killed as Iran retaliates.

The US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz says striking Iran was necessary to protect American allies, prevent proxy militias, and to ensure that Tehran can never “threaten the world with a nuclear weapon.”

Figures from across the United States political spectrum have reacted to President Donald Trump’s joint attack with Israel on Iran, with Republicans largely expressing support and Democrats failing to offer a robust and unified response.

The attacks have reportedly killed at least 201 people, including more than 80 in a school in southern Iran, many of them children.

Iran has launched retaliatory strikes on Israel as well as US bases across the region, located in countries such as Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait, prompting fears that the conflict could spiral out of control and plunge the region into violence.

An initial YouGov poll conducted on February 28, after the strikes, suggested that 33 percent of US adults approved of the US attacking Iran, while 45 percent disapproved. Among Democrats and Independents, approval was just 10 percent and 21 percent, respectively, while 68 percent of Republicans expressed support.

Here’s how some of the US’s most prominent elected representatives and political figures have reacted.

President Donald Trump: “A short time ago, the United States military started major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world.”

Republican House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson: “Today, Iran is facing the severe consequences of its evil actions. President Trump and the Administration have made every effort to pursue peaceful and diplomatic solutions in response to the Iranian regime’s sustained nuclear ambitions and development, terrorism, and the murder of Americans—and even their own people.”

Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune: “For years, Iran’s relentless nuclear ambitions, its expanded ballistic missile inventory, and its unwavering support for terror groups in the region have posed a clear and unacceptable threat to U.S. servicemembers, citizens in the region, and many of our allies. Despite the dogged efforts of the president and his administration, the Iranian regime has refused the diplomatic off-ramps that would peacefully resolve these national security concerns. I commend President Trump for taking action to thwart these threats.”

Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries: “Donald Trump failed to seek Congressional authorization prior to striking Iran. Instead, the president’s decision to abandon diplomacy and launch a massive military attack has left American troops vulnerable to Iran’s retaliatory actions. We pray for the safety of the men and women of the US military as they have been put into harm’s way in a dangerous theatre of war.”

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: “The administration has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat. Confronting Iran’s malign regional activities, nuclear ambitions, and harsh oppression of the Iranian people demands American strength, resolve, regional coordination, and strategic clarity. Unfortunately, President Trump’s fitful cycles of lashing out and risking wider conflict are not a viable strategy.”

Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib: “The American people do not want a war with Iran. Trump is acting on the violent fantasies of the American political elite and the Israeli apartheid government, ignoring the vast majority of Americans who say loud and clear: No More Wars.”

Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic. Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The president walked away from these discussions and chose war instead.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani: “Today’s military strikes on Iran — carried out by the United States and Israel — mark a catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression. Bombing cities. Killing civilians. Opening a new theatre of war.  Americans do not want this. They do not want another war in pursuit of regime change. They want relief from the affordability crisis. They want peace.”

Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders: “This Trump–Netanyahu war is unconstitutional and violates international law. It endangers the lives of U.S. troops and people across the region. We’ve lived through the lies of Vietnam and Iraq. No more endless wars. Congress must pass a War Powers Resolution immediately.”

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen: “Trump is lying to the American people as he launches an illegal, regime-change war against Iran. This is endangering American lives and has already resulted in mass civilian casualties. This is not making us safer & only damages the US and our interests. The Senate must immediately vote on the War Powers Resolution to stop it.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham: “I fervently pray that the long-suffering people of Iran will have their oppression ended soon. I also fervently pray that we’re on the verge of a new dawn in the Middle East, with historic opportunity for lasting peace and prosperity. As to our allies in Israel, President Trump and all under his command, your bravery has set in motion the end of evil and darkness, and the beginning of the light. Well done.”

Democratic Representative Ro Khanna: “Trump has launched an illegal regime change war in Iran with American lives at risk. Congress must convene on Monday to vote on Representative Thomas Massie and my WPR [War Powers Resolution] to stop this. Every member of Congress should go on record this weekend on how they will vote.”

Republican Representative Thomas Massie: “I am opposed to this War. This is not “America First.” When Congress reconvenes, I will work with Representative Ro Khanna to force a Congressional vote on war with Iran. The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.”

Republican Senator Tom Cotton: “Iran’s missile program poses an imminent threat to the United States and our allies. I’m thankful President Trump is taking necessary action to protect our homeland.”

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff: “Trump is drawing our country into yet another foreign war that Americans don’t want and Congress has not authorised. The Iranian regime is a brutal and murderous dictatorship. But that does not give Trump the authority to unilaterally initiate a war of choice.”

Democratic Senator John Fetterman: “Operation Epic Fury. President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel.”

Former Democratic Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris: “Donald Trump is dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want. Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice.”

Former Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene: “We said “No More Foreign Wars, No More Regime Change!” We said it on rally stage after rally stage, speech after speech. Trump, Vance, basically the entire admin campaigned on it and promised to put America FIRST and Make America Great Again. My generation has been let down, abused, and used by our government our entire adult lives and our children’s generation is literally being abandoned.”

Feb. 27 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced he was directing all federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s artificial intelligence solutions even as it’s the only one being used in the military’s classified systems.

Trump lashed out on his social media network Truth Social Friday.

“THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, and the tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military,” he posted.

“The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY,” he wrote.

But an unnamed source told Axios that despite the president’s post, Anthropic and the Pentagon were still negotiating ahead of the 5:01 p.m. deadline that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth set.

Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael called Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei a liar on X. “It’s a shame that @DarioAmodei is a liar and has a God-complex. He wants nothing more than to try to personally control the U.S. Military and is OK putting our nation’s safety at risk,” he posted on X. “The @DeptofWar will ALWAYS adhere to the law but not bend to whims of any one for-profit tech company.”

Trump’s post continued: “Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are using Anthropic’s products, at various levels. Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow,” the president said.

“WE will decide the fate of our Country – NOT some out-of-control, Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about.”

Anthropic’s AI model Claude was used to capture Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and could be used in Iran, if needed. Axios reported that defense officials praised Claude’s abilities and one admitted that it would be a “huge pain in the ass” to stop using it.

Anthropic faced a 5 p.m. EST deadline to comply with the Pentagon and allow it to use the company’s artificial intelligence system without restraint.

If Anthropic declines, Hegseth has said he will have the company labeled a “supply chain risk” or invoke the Defense Production Act to force it to agree.

In July, Anthropic signed a $200 million contract with the Pentagon, but Amodei insists that its AI model Claude not be used for mass surveillance in the United States or for autonomous weapons without human approval.

The Defense Department has said it doesn’t plan to use the tools in that manner, but that Anthropic doesn’t get to make those decisions. It says the U.S. government can use tools “for all lawful purposes.”

“Legality is the Pentagon’s responsibility as the end user,” a senior Pentagon official told NPR.

On Thursday, Amodei said the company wouldn’t agree to the Pentagon’s terms.

“I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies and to defeat our autocratic adversaries,” he wrote in a statement. “Anthropic understands that the Department of War, not private companies, makes military decisions. We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner.

“However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values. Some uses are also simply outside the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do. Two such use cases [domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons] have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now.”

Amodei acknowledged Hegseth’s threats to blacklist the company or force it to comply.

“These threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request,” Amodei wrote. “But given the substantial value that Anthropic’s technology provides to our armed forces, we hope they reconsider.”

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said on X Thursday: “Here’s what we’re asking: Allow the Pentagon to use Anthropic’s model for all lawful purposes. This is a simple, common-sense request that will prevent Anthropic from jeopardizing critical military operations and potentially putting our warfighters at risk. We will not let ANY company dictate the terms regarding how we make operational decisions. They have until 5:01 p.m. ET on Friday to decide. Otherwise, we will terminate our partnership with Anthropic and deem them a supply chain risk for DOW [Department of Defense].”

Geoffrey Gertz, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told NPR that both measures the Pentagon threatened are unusual and contradictory.

“It’s this funny mix where they both are such a risk that they need to be kicked out of all systems, and so essential that they need to be compelled to be part of the system no matter what,” he said.

Lauren Kahn, a senior research analyst at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, told CNBC: “There are no winners in this. It leaves a sour taste in everyone’s mouth.”

President Donald Trump stood in front of regional leaders during a visit to the Middle East in May and declared a new era of US foreign policy in the region, one that is not guided by trying to reshape it or change its governing systems.

“In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” the US president said in rebuke of his hawkish predecessors.

Less than a year later, Trump ordered an all-out assault on Iran with the stated goal of bringing “freedom” to the country, borrowing language from the playbook of interventionist neoconservatives, like former President George W Bush, whom he spent his political career criticising.

Analysts say the war with Iran does not fit with Trump’s stated political ideology, policy goals or campaign promises.

Instead, several Iran experts told Al Jazeera that Trump is waging a war, together with Israel, that only benefits Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

“This is, once again, a war of choice launched by the US with [a] push from Israel,” said Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC.

“This is another Israeli war that the US is launching. Israel has pushed the US to attack Iran for two decades, and they finally got it.”

Mortazavi highlighted Trump’s criticism of his predecessors, who had waged regime-change wars in the region.

“It is ironic, because this is a president who called himself the ‘president of peace‘,” she told Al Jazeera.

History of warnings of the Iranian ‘threat’

Netanyahu, who promoted the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, has been warning for more than two decades that Iran is on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Iran denies seeking a nuclear bomb, and even Trump administration officials have acknowledged that Washington has no evidence that Tehran is weaponising its uranium enrichment programme.

After the US bombed Iran’s main enrichment facilities in the 12-day war in June last year – an attack that Trump says “obliterated” the country’s nuclear programme – Netanyahu pivoted to a new supposed Iranian threat: Tehran’s ballistic missiles.

“Iran can blackmail any American city,” Netanyahu told pro-Israel podcaster Ben Shapiro in October.

“People don’t believe it. Iran is developing intercontinental missiles with a range of 8,000km [5,000 miles], add another 3,000 [1,800 miles], and they can get to the East Coast of the US.”

Trump repeated that claim, which Tehran has vehemently denied and has not been backed by any public evidence or testing, in his State of the Union address earlier this week.

“They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America,” he said of the Iranians.

Trump has been building the case for a wider war with Iran since the June conflict, repeatedly threatening to bomb the country again.

But the US president’s own National Security Strategy last year called for de-prioritising the Middle East in Washington’s foreign policy and focusing on the Western Hemisphere.

Meanwhile, the US public, wary of global conflict after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has also been largely opposed to new strikes against Iran, public opinion polls show.

Only 21 percent of respondents in a recent University of Maryland survey said they favoured a war with Iran.

The first day of the war saw Iran fire missiles against bases and cities that host US troops and assets across the Middle East in retaliation for the joint US-Israeli strikes, plunging the region into chaos.

Trump acknowledged that US troops may suffer casualties in the conflict. “That often happens in war,” he said on Saturday. “But we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future. And it is a noble mission.”

‘Ignoring the vast majority of Americans’

The Trump administration had appeared to step back from the brink of conflict earlier this month by engaging in diplomacy with Tehran.

US and Iranian negotiators held three rounds of talks over the past week, with Tehran stressing that it is willing to agree to rigorous inspections of its nuclear programme.

Omani mediators and Iranian officials had described the last round of negotiations, which took place on Thursday, as positive, saying that it yielded significant progress.

The June 2025 war, initiated by Israel without provocation, also came in the middle of US-Iran talks.

“Netanyahu’s agenda has always been to prevent a diplomatic solution, and he feared Trump was actually serious about getting a deal, so the start of this war in the middle of negotiations is a success for him, just like it was last June,” Jamal Abdi, the president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), told Al Jazeera.

“Trump’s embrace of regime change rhetoric is a further victory for Netanyahu, and loss for the American people, as it suggests the US may be committed to a long and unpredictable military boondoggle.”

While announcing the strikes on Saturday, Trump said his aim is to prevent Iran from “threatening America and our core national security interests”.

But US critics, including some proponents of Trump’s “America first” movement, have argued that Iran – more than 10,000km (6,000 miles) away – does not pose a threat to the US.

Earlier this month, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told conservative commentator Tucker Carlson that “if it were not for Iran, there wouldn’t be Hezbollah; we wouldn’t have the problem on the border with Lebanon”.

Carlson said, “What problem on the border with Lebanon? I’m an American. I’m not having any problems on the border with Lebanon right now. I live in Maine.”

On Saturday, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib stressed that the US public does not want war with Iran.

“Trump is acting on the violent fantasies of the American political elite and the Israeli apartheid government, ignoring the vast majority of Americans who say loud and clear: No More Wars,” Tlaib said in a statement.

Democratic lawmakers have largely condemned the strikes on Iran, emphasizing the lack of congressional approval.

Lawmakers from the Democratic Party have condemned the US attacks on Iran as a “dangerous” and “unnecessary” escalation, and called on the Senate to immediately vote on legislation that would block the president’s ability to take further military action without congressional approval.

Senator Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees and the primary author of the war powers resolution, called President Donald Trump’s order to attack Iran a “colossal mistake”.

“The Senate should immediately return to session and vote on my War Powers Resolution to block the use of US forces in hostilities against Iran,” Kaine said in a statement on Saturday. “Every single Senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action.”

House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed Kaine, saying that House Democrats are committed to forcing a floor vote on a measure to restrict Trump’s war powers regarding Iran.

“Donald Trump failed to seek Congressional authorisation prior to striking Iran. Instead, the President’s decision to abandon diplomacy and launch a massive military attack has left American troops vulnerable to Iran’s retaliatory actions,” he said in a statement. “The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately.”

The push for a legislative check on Trump’s executive power has gained significant bipartisan momentum in the Senate, of which the Republican Party maintains a slim majority.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanded on Saturday that Congress be briefed immediately about the Iran attacks, including an all-senators classified session and public testimony, criticising the administration for not providing details on the threat’s scope and immediacy.

“The administration has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat,” he said in a statement.

Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, described the strikes in a statement posted on X as “a deeply consequential decision that risks pulling the United States into another broad conflict in the Middle East”.

He questioned the urgency and intelligence behind the attack, warning of repeating “mistakes of the past”, like the Iraq war.

“The American people have seen this playbook before – claims of urgency, misrepresented intelligence, and military action that pulls the United States into regime change and prolonged, costly nation-building,” he said.

Not just Democrats

While the push to curb executive military authority is largely driven by the Democratic caucus, a growing contingent of Republican lawmakers has signalled a rare break from the White House to join the effort.

Republican representative Thomas Massie, one of the most outspoken critics, described the strikes as “acts of war unauthorised by Congress”.

“I am opposed to this War. This is not America First,” he wrote on X.

In the Senate, Republican Senator Rand Paul, who also co-sponsored the war powers resolution, said his opposition to the war is based on constitutional principles.

“My oath of office is to the Constitution, so with studied care, I must oppose another Presidential war,” he said on X.

Feb. 28 (UPI) — OpenAI announced it secured a deal to provide artificial intelligence services to the Defense Department hours after the Trump administration directed all federal agencies to stop using those provided by Anthropic.

OpenAI is the San Francisco-based tech research company founded by Sam Altman, Elon Musk and others behind applications including ChatGPT and DALL-E.

“Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified work,” OpenAI CEO Altman said late Friday in a post on X.

The Pentagon had previously used Anthropic’s AI model Claude in much of its classified work, including its operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Contract negotiations between the tech company and the Defense Department soured after the Trump administration demanded it be allowed to use the AI system for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic, though, wanted certain guardrails in place to prevent the government from using its AI system for surveilling Americans or to create autonomous weapons.

Friday evening, President Donald Trump directed all federal agencies to stop using Anthropic, accusing it of being a “radical left, woke company” attempting “to dictate how our great military fights and wins wars!”

“The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

In his post on X, Altman said OpenAI’s agreement with the Defense Department includes similar protections against domestic surveillance and weapons sought by Anthropic.

“Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems,” he said. “The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.”

The New York Times reported that unlike Anthropic, OpenAI included in its contract with the Pentagon phrasing that allows the government to use its AI product for all lawful purposes.

Fortune reported that Altman told OpenAI employees that the government is allowing the company to build its own “safety stack” and that if the AI model refuses to allow the government to do a certain task, the government won’t force it to.

WASHINGTON — For a decade, President Trump promised to end what he calls forever wars, casting himself as a leader opposed to prolonged conflicts in the Middle East and who would rather pursue peace in the world.

Now, early in his second term, Trump is taking military action against Iran that could expand well beyond a limited effort to halt the country’s nuclear program.

In a video posted on Truth Social, the commander-in-chief said American forces also plan to “raze their missile industry to the ground” and “annihilate their navy.” He warned members of Iran’s military to surrender or “face certain death.” And urged the Iranian people to take the moment as an opportunity to rise up against their government.

“This regime will soon learn that no one should challenge the strength and might of the United States armed forces,” Trump said.

Trump, who has been considering a strike on Iran for several weeks, acknowledged he reached the decision to attack while aware of the human toll that could come with it.

“The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war,” he said. “But we are doing this, not for now, we are doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”

Trump’s military campaign in Iran is a sharp turn in tone for a president who has long been critical of open-ended conflicts in the Middle East, and marks a shift from an America-first agenda message that helped him return to the White House.

“I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars,” Trump said in his November 2024 victory speech as he promised to focus national resources on domestic priorities rather than foreign conflicts.

As Trump advocated to bring home American forces from deployments around the world and to withdraw from key defense treaties, his position resonated with a war-weary electorate in the lead up to the election.

Fewer than six in 10 Americans (56%) believed the United States should take an active role in world affairs ahead of the election — the second-lowest level recorded since the question was first asked in 1974, according to polling by the Council on Foreign Affairs.

Trump’s posture on war in the Middle East had been consistent before he ran for office.

In 2013, he criticized former President Obama’s negotiations with Tehran, predicting in a post on Twitter, that Obama would “attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly.” That same year, Trump warned that “our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.”

And in a heated February 2016 debate, Trump attacked former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, stating that his brother George W. Bush lied about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities to get the U.S. into the Iraq War. Trump called the Iraq War a “big, fat mistake” that “destabilized the Middle East.”

“They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none,” he said.

Trump’s confrontation with Iran bears little resemblance to those early rebukes.

Trump has yet to present evidence of an imminent threat to the United States from Iran’s nuclear program — a capability he claimed to have “obliterated” just eight months ago — and has instead framed the military campaign as one to ensure Tehran never develops nuclear weapon at all.

“It is a very simple message,” he said. “They will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump’s shift has already drawn the attention of congressional Democrats, many of whom are calling the president out for backing out on his promise to end foreign wars — and are demanding that he involve Congress in any further military actions.

“Regardless of what the President may think or say, he does not enjoy a blank check to launch large-scale military operations without a clear strategy, without any transparency or public debate, and not without Congressional approval,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) criticized Trump for “drawing the country into yet another foreign war that Americans don’t want and Congress has not authorized.”

The military involvement in Iran is not the first time that members of Congress have complained about the Trump administration’s willingness to sideline the legislative branch on decisions that could trigger broader conflicts this year.

In January, Trump ordered military forces to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and said the United States would run the sovereign nation until further notice. He threatened military action in Colombia, whose leftist President Gustavo Petro has been one of Trump’s most vocal critics.

Trump has alienated allied nations when he said he was willing to send American troops to seize Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. And on Friday, he said U.S. is in talks with Havana and raised the possibility of a “friendly takeover of Cuba” without offering any details on what he meant.

His actions have coincided with his annoyance at not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to seek peace in the world. At one point, the president said he no longer felt an “obligation to think purely of Peace” because he didn’t get the recognition.

Trump’s shifting tone, and his use of violent war imagery in his pretaped remarks about Iran, have rattled even part of his base.

“I did not campaign for this. I did not donate money for this,” said former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a conservative who recently left Congress after a bitter fight with Trump. “This is not what we thought MAGA was supposed to be. Shame!”

Republican leaders, however, are largely standing behind the president.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Iran “posed a clear and unacceptable threat” to the United States and has refused “the diplomatic off-ramps.” House Speaker Mike Johnson (D-La.) said Trump took the action after exhausting “every effort to pursue peaceful and diplomatic solutions.”

Other top Republican lawmakers rallied behind the president, too.

“The butcher’s bill has finally come due for the ayatollahs,” Sen. Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote in a post on X. “May God bless and protect our troops on this vital mission of vengeance, and justice, and safety.”

Across advanced and emerging economies, central bankers are confronting an increasingly assertive political class. Populist leaders and fiscally strained governments are pressing for lower interest rates, easier financing and, in some cases, greater influence over monetary authorities themselves.

The response from central banks has been firm but not without risk. In defending their independence, they risk appearing political, blurring the very boundary they are trying to protect.

The U.S.: Digging In at the Federal Reserve

In the United States, the confrontation has been direct. Jerome Powell has faced repeated criticism from President Donald Trump over interest rates, with Trump arguing that tighter policy undermines economic growth.

Rather than soften its stance, the Federal Reserve has emphasized its legal independence and data-driven approach. Powell has repeatedly stressed that decisions will be based on inflation and employment data, not political preference.

The stakes are high. With U.S. federal debt at $36 trillion and large refinancing needs ahead, pressure to keep borrowing costs low is intensifying. Any perception that the Fed is yielding to political demands could unsettle bond markets and erode confidence in its anti-inflation mandate.

Europe: Pre-Emptive Exits and Institutional Defense

In Europe, resistance has taken a subtler form. François Villeroy de Galhau is stepping down from the Bank of France months before elections that polls suggest could benefit the far right. Though officially described as a personal decision, the move is widely seen as an attempt to preserve institutional continuity before a potential political shift.

Similarly, Christine Lagarde has not ruled out the possibility of leaving the European Central Bank before completing her term, even while stating her baseline intention is to stay.

Such pre-emptive departures highlight a paradox: central banks are trying to shield themselves from politicization, yet early resignations can themselves be interpreted as political maneuvers. Critics argue this risks undermining the perception of neutrality.

European institutions are legally insulated by treaties, but they are not immune to democratic pressures particularly as high debt levels in countries such as France and Italy fuel debates over whether central banks should help finance public spending.

Japan: Market Discipline as a Shield

At the Bank of Japan, the dynamic is slightly different. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi appointed dovish economists to the board, a move seen by some as an effort to temper rate hikes.

Yet the BOJ has maintained its commitment to policy normalization. In Japan’s case, currency markets have provided reinforcement. A weakening yen during earlier periods of ultra-loose policy heightened political sensitivity to inflation risks. Market volatility effectively strengthened the central bank’s hand, illustrating how investor reactions can discipline governments as well as monetary authorities.

Why Independence Matters

The battle is about more than institutional pride. Central bank independence emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the inflationary spirals of the 1970s. Countries that subordinated monetary policy to political cycles often experienced runaway prices and capital flight.

More recent examples underscore the danger. In countries such as Turkey and Argentina, political interference in rate-setting has coincided with surging inflation and currency instability.

For advanced economies now grappling with record sovereign debt and rising defense spending, the temptation to lean on central banks is clear. Lower rates ease fiscal pressure. But if investors believe policy is being distorted for political convenience, borrowing costs may ultimately rise rather than fall.

The Blurred Line Between Mandate and Mission Creep

The past decade has complicated the picture. Massive bond-buying programs during the global financial crisis and the pandemic pulled central banks deeper into fiscal territory. In Europe and Britain, limited climate-related initiatives sparked accusations of overreach.

Critics argue that such expansions of mandate have made central banks more politically visible and therefore more vulnerable.

This creates a delicate trade-off. Remaining silent in the face of political pressure may preserve appearances but risk policy distortion. Publicly resisting may safeguard inflation credibility but invite accusations of entering the political arena.

Markets as Final Arbiter

Ultimately, financial markets may determine how much room politicians have to maneuver. Governments can pressure central banks, but they cannot easily compel investors to finance deficits at artificially low rates.

If markets sense that independence is eroding, they may demand higher yields, weaken currencies or pull capital outcomes that raise inflation and undermine growth. In that sense, investor discipline can reinforce central bank autonomy more effectively than legal protections alone.

A Costly Defense

Central bankers today face a more hostile and fragmented political landscape than their predecessors. The old assumption that technocrats could quietly manage inflation while politicians handled everything else no longer holds.

By fighting back, they defend hard-won credibility. But in doing so, they risk appearing as participants in political struggles rather than neutral arbiters of economic stability.

The challenge is no longer simply setting interest rates. It is preserving trust in institutions designed to stand above politics at a time when politics increasingly refuses to stand aside.

With information from Reuters.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg, with an assist from David Zahniser, giving you the latest on city and county government.

When Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman launched her bid for mayor, her decision stunned many of the city’s political players, in large part because she had endorsed Karen Bass’ reelection a few weeks earlier.

Since Raman jumped into the race, those politicos have been searching for clues as to why Raman broke so completely with Bass, going from ally to opponent.

Now, an additional data point has emerged that, at minimum, signals that Bass and Raman were not as simpatico as they seemed.

Last month, Bass quietly took steps to drop Raman from the powerful board that oversees the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Raman had been serving in that role since 2022, when she was appointed by then-Mayor Eric Garcetti.

Bass’ team said they notified Raman’s office on Jan. 16 that the mayor planned to select someone else to represent her on the AQMD’s 13-member board, which works to ensure that more than 17 million people across four counties — Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino — have cleaner air.

Raman’s term expired last month, and Bass has not announced a replacement. Until that happens, Raman will continue to serve in the post.

Bass spokesperson Amanda Crumley did not provide an explanation for Bass’ decision but said it was not prompted by any policy disagreements between the two.

“The Mayor has 60 days to appoint a new council member to the AQMD, and she and her team started conversations with council members weeks ago in planning for the end of the term,” Crumley said. “As has been the plan for weeks, Mayor Bass will be moving forward with an appointment soon.”

Raman, in a statement, said that losing the AQMD seat was not a factor in her decision to run for mayor.

“During my time on the Board, I’ve been able to meaningfully push for cleaner air, stronger accountability for major polluters, and real progress on zero-emission freight and building standards that protect the health of Angelenos,” Raman said.

Raman said she learned she was being “removed” from her post in mid-January. On Jan. 27, Bass announced that Raman had endorsed her bid for a second term. A few days before that, the mayor’s team informed Raman’s office that they would be going public with her endorsement, according to a Bass campaign aide.

Raman launched her own mayoral campaign on Feb. 7, hours before the filing deadline, saying the city “can’t seem to manage the basics.”

Bass and Raman have mostly been in sync over the last three years, frequently appearing together and only occasionally revealing points of contention.

Raman, who lives in Silver Lake, opposed a package of pay increases for police officers, saying it was financially reckless. Bass, who resides in Windsor Square, said the raises and bonuses were needed to boost recruitment at the Los Angeles Police Department, which has lost 1,300 officers since 2020.

Last year, Raman also opposed a $2.6-billion plan to upgrade the Convention Center. She called the project a budget buster, while Bass said it is needed to revitalize downtown and the region’s economy.

The mayor’s move at the AQMD suggests the two may have disagreed in another policy area. But the back story is tough to decode.

One possible clue: the AQMD’s recent approval of a major agreement to bring zero-emissions technology to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The agreement commits the ports to add electric truck chargers, hydrogen fuel pumps and other technology aimed at eliminating diesel pollution.

At one point, Raman pushed for a more aggressive “rulemaking” approach that would give the AQMD enforcement power if the ports failed to meet certain emissions goals, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who asked to remain unnamed.

Bass favored a less regulatory approach — a cooperative agreement between AQMD and the ports, the source said. That strategy was also favored by the shipping industry and organized labor.

In the end, Raman voted in favor of the cooperative agreement, while acknowledging outside criticism of the decision. She said she supported the agreement to keep the AQMD from “continuing a decade of inaction.”

Environmental groups were disappointed. Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, said the AQMD “adopted a weak, unenforceable agreement when what the board had committed to doing for years was an actual enforceable limit on emissions.”

Magavern said he thinks there were times that Raman, as a Bass appointee, “felt compelled to go along with the mayor’s wishes.” At the same time, he expressed some concern about Raman’s departure.

“We are sorry to see her leave the board because we think the AQMD needs to face up to our air pollution challenges,” Magavern said. “We certainly hope that Bass will appoint someone who is willing to stand up for clean air and take on polluting special interests.”

For now, Raman’s name still appears on the AQMD website as a member of the board. Its next meeting is on Friday.

State of play

— BIGGER IS BETTER: The city’s Charter Reform Commission recommended this week that the City Council grow to 25 members, up from 15. The citizens panel also called for the city to switch to ranked-choice voting, with voters choosing their candidates in order of preference. Both proposals could wind up on the city’s ballot in November, depending on the wishes of the council.

— FEDS SWOOP IN: The FBI raided the home and office of L.A. Unified schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho this week, in what appears to be a probe involving a company that developed an AI chatbot for the nation’s second-largest school system. Two days later, the school board placed Carvalho on paid leave.

— HEADING TO COURT: Former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley sued the city of Los Angeles this week, saying the mayor retaliated against her in an attempt to shift blame over the city’s handling of the Palisades fire. A Bass aide said the lawsuit has no merit. The council decided to pay Crowley’s successor, Fire Chief Jaime Moore, nearly $474,000 per year.

— ‘RED HOT COALS’: Meanwhile, a Los Angeles firefighter said in sworn testimony that he sounded the alarm about the inadequate mop-up of the Lachman fire — and was blown off by a captain — days before the embers reignited into the deadly Palisades fire.

— SIGNATURE SEARCH: Wednesday’s deadline for candidates to turn in their petitions for the June 2 primary election is fast approaching. So far, six mayoral candidates have qualified for the ballot — Bass, Raman and four others: housing advocate Rae Huang, engineering manager Asaad Alnajjar, political scientist Juanita Lopez and technical architect Andrej Selivra.

— WHO ELSE IS IN? All of the incumbents have qualified: City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Controller Kenneth Mejia and Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Katy Yaroslavsky, Monica Rodriguez, Traci Park, Hugo Soto-Martínez and Tim McOsker.

According to the City Clerk’s latest update, the challengers so far are Deputy Atty. Gen. Marissa Roy, running for city attorney; real estate executive Zach Sokoloff, running for city controller; and council candidates Maria Lou Calanche, Nelson Grande, Jose Ugarte and Faizah Malik.

— GIVING BACK GRANTS: About $100 million in state funding for transportation projects in Boyle Heights, Wilmington and Skid Row is now in jeopardy because the city doesn’t have the staff to complete the projects. The issue is part of the fallout from last year’s $1-billion budget shortfall, when city leaders cut hundreds of vacant positions.

— RIDING THE RAILS: The long-awaited extension of the Metro D Line subway, once known as the Purple Line, will finally make its debut on May 8. The extension will take subway riders west from Koreatown to La Cienega Boulevard, with brand-new stations at La Brea and Fairfax avenues.

— ANIMAL ATTACK: A jury has awarded $5.4 million to a woman who was mauled by a dog at an L.A. animal shelter, the latest in a string of such cases. The woman said neither the shelter nor the rescue group she worked for told her about the dog’s bite history.

— BAR FIGHT: Downtown LA Law Group, the firm at the center of the scandal over Los Angeles County’s $4-billion sex abuse settlement, is fighting to keep thousands of documents out of the hands of state bar investigators. The bar launched its probe after The Times reported that nine DTLA clients said they had been paid to sue the county over alleged sex abuse.

— DON’T JUMP: An LAPD officer who went on disability and then was caught skydiving now faces criminal charges. Christopher Brandon Carnahan, 43, committed insurance fraud by exaggerating the extent of an on-duty work injury, according to the D.A.’s office.

— SIDELINED SUPERVISORS: L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger recently sounded off on the governance overhaul coming to the county. Appearing at the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum, Barger said the powerful new position of elected countywide CEO would relegate the supervisors to the realm of ribbon-cutting and little else.

“You’ll see a CEO that has autonomy to do what he or she wants with no term limits, veto power,” Barger said. “Quite frankly, I think the supervisors are going to be in name only.”

QUICK HITS

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

US President Donald Trump says American forces have begun “major combat operations” in Iran alongside Israel, aiming to eliminate what he described as imminent threats from the Iranian regime and defend the American people.

As Washington escalates threats of military action against Iran, negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear programme continue behind the scenes. But while the Trump administration insists that the standoff is about security, Iran’s state media are pushing a very different narrative: that the crisis is a deliberate distraction from the Epstein scandal that continues to implicate the US president.

Contributors:
Dina Esfandiary – Middle East Lead, Bloomberg Economics
Fereshteh Sadeghi – Iranian journalist
Jamal Abdi – President, National Iranian American Council
Sina Toossi – Senior Fellow, Centre for International Policy

On our radar:

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi travelled to Israel this past week in a carefully choreographed display of solidarity. While Modi’s trip was celebrated in the Israeli media, criticism by Indian journalists was blocked back home. Leaving the two leaders to sign arms deals that will boost an already significant military partnership.

The Rise of Digital Micro-Bolsonaros

Nearly two years after Jair Bolsonaro’s fall from power in Brazil, the movement he built is searching for a new figurehead. A rising generation of young, evangelical, and hyper-online politicians is stepping in.

They are leveraging a sophisticated, decades-old religious media machine that evolved from radio and television into a powerful force on social media. Brazil’s political right is being reshaped for the digital age.

Featuring:
Anna Virginia Balloussier – Journalist, Folha de Sao Paulo
Caro Evangelista – Executive Director, ISER
Magali Cunha – Editor-in-Chief, Berreia Project

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has broadened its prosecution of the protesters involved in a church demonstration to 39 people, up from nine.

The demonstration was part of a backlash to Trump’s deadly immigration surge in the midwestern state of Minnesota, but officials have sought to frame the protest as an attack on religious freedom.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the expanded indictment on Friday in a message posted to social media.

“Today, [the Justice Department] unsealed an indictment charging 30 more people who took part in the attack on Cities Church in Minnesota,” Bondi wrote. “At my direction, federal agents have already arrested 25 of them, with more to come throughout the day.”

She added a warning to other protesters who might seek to disrupt a religious service.

“YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP,” Bondi said. “If you do so, you cannot hide from us — we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you. This Department of Justice STANDS for Christians and all Americans of faith.”

Appealing to Christian voters

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has sought to appeal to Christian conservatives by launching initiatives, for example, to root out anti-Christian bias and prevent alleged acts of Christian persecution, both domestically and in countries like Nigeria.

But critics have accused his administration of attempting to stifle opposition through its prosecution of the Minnesota protest attendees.

Some of those indicted deny even being a part of the January 18 protest. Defendants like former CNN anchor Don Lemon and reporter Georgia Fort say they attended in their capacity as journalists.

Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have publicly questioned whether their prosecution is an attempt to curtail freedom of the press.

The superseding indictment, filed on Thursday, levies two counts against the 39 defendants, accusing them of conspiracy against the right of religious freedom and efforts to injure, intimidate or interfere with the exercise of religious freedom.

“While inside the Church, defendants collectively oppressed, threatened and intimidated the Church’s congregants and pastors by physically occupying the main aisle and rows of chairs near the front of the church,” the indictment reads

It also describes the protesters as “engaging in menacing and threatening behavior” by “chanting and yelling loudly” and obstructing exits.

A magistrate judge on January 22 initially rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to charge nine attendees who were at the protest.

But the department sought a grand jury indictment instead, which was filed on January 29 and made public the next day.

A reaction to Trump’s immigration surge

The protest, dubbed “Operation Pullup”, was conceived as a response to the violent immigration crackdown that had unfolded in Minnesota.

Many of the enforcement efforts centred on the metropolitan area that includes the Twin Cities: St Paul and Minneapolis.

Trump had repeatedly blamed the area’s large Somali American population for a welfare fraud scandal involving government funds for programmes like Medicaid and school lunches.

In December, the Trump administration surged federal immigration agents to the region, nicknaming the effort Operation Metro Surge. At its height, as many as 3,000 agents were in the Minneapolis-St Paul area.

But the effort was plagued by reports of excessive violence towards detainees and protesters alike. Videos circulated of officers breaking the car windows of legal observers, pepper-spraying protesters and beating people.

Officers also engaged in the practice of entering homes forcibly without a judicial warrant, which advocates described as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Cases of unlawful arrests were also reported.

But a turning point came on January 7, when an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was caught on camera shooting into the vehicle of 37-year-old mother Renee Good. She died, and her killing sparked nationwide protests.

Operation Pullup took place at Cities Church in St Paul less than two weeks later.

It was intended as a demonstration against the church’s pastor, David Easterwood, who serves as a local official for ICE.

Several protesters have indicated that they are prepared to fight the government’s charges over the incident, citing their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Some also said that they intended to remain vigilant towards government immigration operations, even after Trump administration officials announced Operation Metro Surge was winding down in mid-February.

“This is not the time to be Minnesota Nice,” one protester, civil rights lawyer Nekima Levy Armstrong, wrote on social media last week. “It’s time for truth, justice, and freedom to prevail.”