war

Nov. 10, 2026 5:33 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dug in for a fight Tuesday against his potential impeachment in Congress, telling reporters that a rogue lawmaker is targeting him over “policy disagreements” and not the high crimes or offenses the nation’s founders intended.

The embattled Pentagon chief spoke at his first press briefing from the five-sided building in six months, launching a counteroffensive against outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie’s effort to impeach him over his handling of the unpopular war against Iran and other actions.

“In the 250 years of our American republic, no Secretary of War or Secretary of Defense has ever been impeached for carrying out lawful military operations,” Hegseth told reporters.

The briefing was Hegseth’s first since May even as the U.S. military has kept up intermittent operations against Iran as well as fatal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in Latin America.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who lost his primary to a Trump-backed opponent, filed the impeachment resolution in the House on Monday. It sets the stage for a dramatic vote on whether to remove a prominent Trump administration figure following sweeping losses for Republicans in last week’s midterm elections that many at least partly blamed on the Iran conflict and its economic impact.

The resolution largely focuses on the war in Iran but also includes references to Hegseth’s role in military actions in Yemen against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels and Venezuela. Massie said Hegseth’s actions amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors” and his leadership at the Pentagon “warrants impeachment.”

A vote in the House could come by midweek, putting pressure on Republicans — many of whom blamed their election wipeout on the Iran war — but next steps are highly uncertain.

Trump has backed Hegseth, pointing to the raid to capture then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January as well as military operations against Iran that he asserts have “obliterated” its navy and air force.

Iran, however, has been able to keep striking U.S. military bases in the Middle East and has disrupted shipping in the Strait of Hormuz during the course of the more than 8-month-old conflict, driving up global oil prices. Trump told reporters Monday that the Iran war “militarily is effectively over” and repeated his often-made claim that Iran “would love to make a deal.”

Hegseth also has been defending his stewardship of the U.S. military.

“There’s a lot of politically motivated people who may have substantial policy disagreements, but their disagreements are with success,” he told reporters Monday after a speech at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. He added that “if we want to litigate” the military actions that the Trump administration has taken, “I’m happy to do it all day long.”

He also released a video on social media last week that argued impeachment would be “all about the politics of personal destruction” and that “won’t work with me. You can rest assured of that.”

Afterward, scores of Pentagon political appointees posted images of Hegseth emblazoned with the words, “Stand. Fight. Defend the Republic.”

Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s top spokesman, released a statement saying that “despite threats of sham witch hunts from Democrats,” Hegseth is “100% committed to leading the Department until the end of President Trump’s term in office.”

Toropin and Finley write for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where could Iran’s missiles reach?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How has Europe responded to Iran’s missile threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Iran doing this now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States President Donald Trump has said the US plans to seek compensation from countries it “protected” during its war on Iran.

In an interview with CBS News correspondent Ross Douthat that aired Sunday, Trump said such countries would “pay us any and all costs we had for the war”.

“We’re going to get all that money back,” Trump said. “They’re going to do it, 100 percent. Because without us, they wouldn’t exist.”

For the first time, Trump also explicitly spoke of compensation from Israel, which he said “wouldn’t exist” without US military intervention.

The reimbursement demand comes after Trump and his Republican party took a drubbing in midterm elections, which the president has conceded was partly due to public discontent over the Iran war.

The US president has since declared the war “effectively over” militarily, while defending his decision to start the conflict as “a very good decision”.

Here’s what to know about Trump’s demand for repayment, and what it could mean for the US and its allies:

Which countries does Trump want compensation from?

Trump — for the first time — singled out Israel, which was a direct participant in the war against Iran from the outset.

“We decapitated their [Iran’s] nuclear arsenal,” he said. “If I didn’t do that, there would be no Israel right now. Israel would be gone.”

Previously, Trump has said he would seek repayment from Gulf countries that benefit from the US military presence around the embattled Strait of Hormuz, where US forces have been escorting vessels.

“We’re protecting a very rich portion of the world, we’re spending money, and so what we’ve done is we’re going to be reimbursed for protection,” Trump said during a press briefing in July.

He named Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait as countries that should pay.

But while Israel jointly launched the war on Iran with the US, Gulf countries have said that they were not even informed about Washington’s plans, and have since borne the brunt of Iran’s retaliatory attacks. As members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), they have called for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

How much has the Iran war cost the US?

$47.1bn as of mid-October, according to the US military.

But the full cost is likely to be even higher, as that figure excludes the cost of repairing damage to US military bases across the Middle East.

The Congressional Budget Office in September estimated the conflict would carry an additional cost of $2bn-$3bn for each month it continues.

Will Trump actually seek repayment from allies?

Probably not directly, analysts say.

Neil Quilliam, an associate fellow at Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s comments are “best understood as political signalling rather than a serious policy proposal.”

Gulf states in particular are likely to take Trump’s comments “with a grain of salt,” added Bader al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University and associate fellow at Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa programme.

“I think what [Trump] stated on an American news channel was for domestic consumption, and I think that’s how most of the Gulf states will take it,” said al-Saif.

Stefan Lukas, an analyst specialising in Middle East and North Africa security and foreign policy, also pointed to Trump’s domestic political considerations, saying the US president has been “looking for someone to blame … and has been doing everything in his power to divert attention from the midterm election results”.

Lukas told Al Jazeera it is unlikely that Washington’s Arab allies in the region will face large compensation payments “or anything similar”.

However, he suggested that Trump could be more serious about seeking economic concessions from Israel, particularly after announcing that the country would no longer receive US aid after the end of this year.

That is partly because, from Trump’s perspective, “Israel pushed him into a disastrous war with Iran”, Lukas said.

What would compensation look like?

Al-Saif said Trump could be “very innovative” in defining what constitutes repayment for the war, potentially pointing to existing trade agreements or investment from the Gulf.

“There’s many agreements for him to go back to and to claim,” said Al-Saif. “There have been a lot of [Gulf] pledges for investment in the US.”

Farid Boussaid, an assistant professor in Middle East politics at the University of Amsterdam, said Washington could push for further Gulf investment and present it as compensation.

“This will most likely be indirect and take the form of commercial investments in the US, buying of US weapons systems – on top of what has already been ordered – and investments into close associates of Trump’s financial dealings,” said Boussaid.

Trump has repeatedly made misleading claims about foreign investment and trade agreements in the past, portraying them as payments or gifts to the US.

After a July 2025 trade deal with the European Union, Trump claimed the bloc had given the US a $600bn “gift” that could be invested in “anything we want”. However, the framework agreement referred only to an expectation that European companies would invest $600bn across strategic sectors in the US through 2028.

The same month, Trump described a $550bn investment pledge from Japan, under a new US-Japan trade agreement, as being “like a signing bonus that a baseball player would get”.

During Trump’s first term, he repeatedly claimed that Mexico would pay for a border wall – which was never completed and which Mexico did not pay for. Trump later qualified his claim to say that Mexico would reimburse the US for the wall or pay for a “piece” of it, which also never happened. Trump at one point claimed that the benefits of a trade pact he negotiated with Mexico would cover the cost of the wall.

How will US allies react to Trump’s demands?

Having already suffered extensive financial losses during the war, the US’s Gulf allies will not take well to being asked to pay more for a war they did not start, say analysts.

Quilliam said Gulf leaders would likely respond to any demand for direct repayment with “quiet resistance”, arguing that they “already contribute significantly to the cost of regional security through defence cooperation, investment and economic partnerships with the US”.

Gulf states also pay for the maintenance of several large bases that the US uses for military operations in the region.

Boussaid said Gulf states will be particularly averse to such a demand as “the US-Israeli war led to considerable damage to their [civilian] and military infrastructure when Iran struck back”.

Al-Saif added that Trump’s “condescending language does not bode well for partners long invested in the relationship with the US”.

As for Israel, it looks unlikely to “reverse its longstanding role as a recipient rather than a provider of support in its relationship with the US”, according to Marzieh Kouhi Esfahani, assistant professor of politics and international relations of the Middle East at Durham University.

“While Israel and the United States continue to share intelligence and coordinate on regional security issues, any request for Israel to shoulder a meaningful share of the financial burden would run against established practice and Israel’s present resource constraints,” she said.

Donald Trump has said “Iran militarily is effectively over”, and said that there is “positive momentum” behind negotiations to end the Middle East conflict.

“We’re just keeping it the status quo,” the US president said on Monday. “And we’re doing that really at the behest of countries that are their neighbours.”

Addressing reporters from the White House press briefing room, Trump said that renewed US attacks on Iran were “highly unlikely” but that the US was “locked and loaded” should the circumstances change.

Iranian officials have repeatedly expressed doubts about Trump’s prior comments about resolving the conflict.

Responding to a question over why he would not officially declare an end to the war, Trump said that some of the Gulf allies could still face Iranian aggression.

“We have some great allies there and we have to make sure they’re not hurt,” he said, suggesting that the US naval blockade on Iranian ports was helping to make the region more secure.

This is not the first time that Trump has said the Iran war is “militarily” over, but the circumstances for him are different now.

The president has hinted at de-escalation in Iran after a bruising set of midterm election results for the Republicans last week, which senior figures including Vice-President JD Vance blamed on the Iran war.

Ahead of the midterms, Trump had said US forces conducted what he described as “minor strikes” on an Iranian island in the Strait of Hormuz. However, in an interview with 60 Minutes that aired on Sunday, the president said that he did not currently see “any reason” to escalate the conflict.

A YouGov poll completed on the eve of the 2026 midterm elections has found that Americans were far less likely to back candidates who supported the US-Israel war on Iran.

The poll, released on Monday, found that 44 percent of people said they were less likely to support candidates who backed the war, while just 13 percent said they were more likely.

That means a candidate’s support for the war was more than 3 times as likely to put people off as to win them over.

Another 26 percent, meanwhile, indicated the Iran war would not make much of a difference in their vote.

The economics of the war also factored into people’s choices. Some 56 percent of those surveyed said that the US should prioritise avoiding higher prices domestically over achieving US President Donald Trump’s military goals in Iran.

Meanwhile, 22 percent said the opposite: that the Trump administration should prioritise the war over higher costs.

The poll also asked who should decide when the war ends. A majority, 53 percent, said Congress should have the final say, while 29 percent said that the president should decide.

The US and Israel jointly launched the war against Iran on February 28. But Trump’s decision to bypass congressional authorisation for the war has raised constitutional concerns in the US.

Jonathan Guyer, the programme director at the Institute for Global Affairs at Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy firm, told Al Jazeera that the poll – which was conducted on his organisation’s behalf – indicated Americans were looking to Congress to be more assertive.

“The story of the [economic] tradeoff is really important, and then there’s this other story of where Congress has been: Why haven’t lawmakers, not just over the last year but over the last decade, played a bigger role as a backstop on reckless wars launched by presidents?” said Guyer.

“And I think these numbers show the public really wants Congress to play a bigger role and expects their lawmakers to hold power to account.”

Anti-war lane

The survey is the latest to underscore the unpopularity of the US-Israel war on Iran, which has killed thousands of people in Iran and contributed to surging prices, a top issue in the November 3 midterm elections.

Trump’s Republican Party suffered one of the most significant electoral setbacks in modern US history, with Democrats reclaiming both chambers of Congress with strong majorities.

Democrats also flipped key offices in states like Texas, once seen as a conservative stronghold.

Those results have advanced a debate over the war that is playing out in both parties, often pitting more hawkish establishment figures against newcomers opposed to foreign intervention and support for Israel.

In the wake of the “blue wave”, analysts have argued that Democratic voters may expect the party’s leadership to take firmer steps to rein in the president and bring the fighting with Iran to an end.

On Monday, Trump himself said “Iran militarily is effectively over”, though he declined to rule out any further military action. A US naval and land blockade around Iran also remains in effect.

Guyer said he anticipates that foreign policy and, in particular, US support for Israel is likely to emerge as a key dividing line for candidates in future elections, particularly the upcoming 2028 presidential election.

“I think it does create a lane for people like Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed, for the wing of the [Democratic] party represented by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who have a very strong position on this war and on the role of the US in the world that traditional Democrats have been largely silent on,” said Guyer.

A similar debate is also taking place on the political right.

Following the midterms, US Vice President JD Vance shared a lengthy social media post blaming his party’s implosion on the war.

Figures such as Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene have also criticised the war as a betrayal of Trump’s promise to end conflicts around the world.

While the YouGov poll found that Republicans were the only group more likely to vote for a candidate if they supported the president’s war, Guyer says that support has been “softening”.

“A third of Republicans say that backing the war made a candidate appealing, so it’s kind of small,” he said. “And 40 percent shrugged and say it made no difference.”

US President made the remarks following a meeting with the Qatari PM in Washington, DC.

United States President Donald Trump has signalled that he considers the US-Israeli war against Iran “effectively” at an end, after meeting with mediators from Qatar.

In a surprise briefing on Monday, Trump reiterated his position that the US had destroyed Iran’s military. But his remarks suggested he faced pressure from allies in the Middle East to bring hostilities to a close.

“Iran, militarily, is effectively over. We’re just keeping it the status quo,” he said. “We’re doing that really at the behest of countries that are their neighbours.”

The US president clarified that the “status quo” would involve continuing the US naval blockade against Iranian ports, as well as the newly announced Task Force Iron Gate, which seeks to cut off trade by land and through the Caspian Sea.

“Much was discussed with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Trump said.

“Most importantly, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and others would prefer the status quo, that we remain as is — in other words, a continuation of the greatest naval blockade in the history of our country. Probably in the history of the world.”

Trump’s comments come shortly after he and Vice President JD Vance hosted Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani at the White House to discuss the Iran war.

The prime minister posted on social media that he was “grateful for the positive discussions on reaching a deal and bringing peace to the region”.

It is unclear whether Trump’s latest statements significantly change US posture in the war. Trump himself declined to commit to any long-term ceasefire.

“I don’t guarantee anything,” he told the White House briefing room. “But if we do have to go back in, we are locked and loaded and ready to go.”

Iranian officials, meanwhile, dismissed Trump’s latest remarks as a distraction. Both sides have claimed victory throughout the conflict.

“The war on Iran has already wrecked the US government. But Washington flails like a desperate gambler,” Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei wrote in a post on social media.

“FOLD YOUR HAND. STOP manufacturing FAKE NEWS about imaginary talks.”

Separately, through Iran’s state-aligned Tasnim News Agency, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had called for an end to the situation, which he described as “neither war nor peace”.

Pezeshkian added that Iran was open to further negotiations but would not be coerced. “We will not surrender to force and bullying,” he said.

Since the war on Iran began on February 28, the conflict has spilled into surrounding countries and roiled international trade.

Almost as soon as the US and Israel began their attacks, Iran moved to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for fossil fuels and fertiliser, among other goods.

Iran has also responded to US and Israeli strikes with missile and drone fire in countries like Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE, with many of the attacks targeting US military installations.

Other, related conflicts have since emerged. Saudi Arabia has renewed its fighting with the Iran-backed Houthis, and Israel began its occupation of southern Lebanon, as well as deadly airstrikes.

In the nearly nine months since the war began, the US offensive against Iran has grown sporadic, with intermittent exchanges of fire. In recent days, for instance, the Trump administration announced “minor strikes” against Iran’s Qeshm Island.

It also offered a $20m reward for the “information about Iran’s nuclear program, including its facilities, equipment, and associated personnel”.

After the Twelve-Day War in June 2025, Trump had claimed that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme had been obliterated. But he has since made curtailing Iran’s nuclear programme a central premise for the ongoing war.

Iran has long denied seeking a nuclear weapon, maintaining its uranium enrichment programme is for the purposes of civilian energy generation.

WASHINGTON — Facing an expected impeachment resolution in Congress, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he’s eager to litigate the policy choices that he and President Trump have made in Iran and Venezuela.

“If you want to take issue with what we did in Epic Fury or Rough Rider or nabbing Nicolás Maduro, you’re taking issue with the troops and what they accomplished, which is historic,” Hegseth told reporters Monday.

He also announced that he would hold a news conference on Tuesday — his first in over 180 days — on the looming impeachment threat.

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie has pushed the impeachment resolution forward over the objections of House GOP leadership as momentum grows to hold Hegseth accountable for the Iran war, which many Republicans blame for the party’s midterm election wipeout.

Hegseth argued that starting the war with Iran was a “bold move” by Trump “and as the president points out so clearly — you can’t let crazy Islamists have a nuclear bomb.”

“The choice was don’t act and wish it away or take a bold move, which the president did with Midnight Hammer, which we’ve done with Epic Fury,” Hegseth said, referring to the names for the strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and the larger war.

Hegseth’s public defense of the war comes after voters last week overwhelmingly showed the unpopularity of the conflict.

According to The AP Voter Poll, a survey of more than 100,000 voters in the United States, about 6 in 10 said the U.S. made the “wrong decision” in taking military action against Iran, though the survey suggested the Iran war was not the top issue for most voters.

Only about one-third of voters said the war in Iran was “crucial” to shaping how they voted for Congress. That was well below the roughly half who said that about the cost of living or government corruption.

Toropin writes for the Associated Press.

It was another bold statement from United States President Donald Trump: An edict in his usual inflated style, claiming that the US had almost sealed Iran off from the rest of the world.

“Very little gets into, or out of, Iran!” the US president posted on his Truth Social account on Sunday, a day after the US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced its latest plan to choke Tehran’s military supply networks.

On Sunday, CENTCOM announced Task Force Iron Gate – a unit targeting land routes and the Caspian Sea, which will aim to prevent Iran from using ground routes to transport advanced weapons and other materials.

Trump’s message on Truth Social claimed that the task force was “in full force and effect” in Iran – and that between this and the US naval blockade of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the US had virtually cut off what enters and exits the country.

But analysts say a small intelligence-focused unit cannot seal Iran’s borders or stop its extensive procurement networks without regional cooperation.

They did warn, however, that attempts to disrupt these networks could draw neighbouring countries into the conflict and undermine ongoing diplomatic efforts in the US-Israel war on Iran.

“I see Task Force Iron Gate as a desperate attempt to extend the American naval blockade into Iran’s continental supply networks without deploying American troops along its borders,” Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of defence studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

An ‘intelligence fusion cell’

Task Force Iron Gate aims to find out where “weapons systems are coming in, how they could potentially be cut off” and how “Iran is transporting its energy”, Michael Mulroy, a former US deputy assistant defence secretary for the Middle East, has told Al Jazeera.

Based in Tampa, Florida, the unit will coordinate with other US government agencies “on preventing the movement of advanced weapons systems, dual-use technologies, sanctioned materials and illegal revenue streams across Iran’s land borders and the Caspian Sea”, CENTCOM has said.

Analysts said the task force could coordinate sanctions enforcement, pressure foreign suppliers, and work with partner countries to disrupt smuggling.

According to Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, the US mission would rely on a combination of satellite imagery, drones, intercepted communications, financial intelligence and intelligence-sharing.

“Then, frankly, I would expect some use of force – strikes or discreet ground operations – to confiscate components, whether done by US forces or the Israelis,” the analyst told Al Jazeera.

“They would want to pass some intelligence on and bring legal and economic pressure to bear outside the Middle East if they think dual-use components are coming from the West … but if the target is supplies from Russia and China, that will be tougher.”

While CENTCOM’s announcement did not explicitly identify Iran’s weapons trade with Russia, analysts say the unit could be seen as an attempt to disrupt supply networks that include Russian connections.

US media have reported that Russia has sent drone components and explosives to Iran via the Caspian Sea. There are also claims that Russian technology could be helping Iran develop advanced supersonic cruise missiles.

Krieg agreed the task force would combine methods, but stated that it would operate largely as an “intelligence fusion cell”.

“Twenty people cannot police thousands of kilometres of frontiers,” he said.

“The objective is not necessarily to stop every shipment, but to make Iranian military procurement progressively more expensive, slower and riskier,” he added.

The obstacle the US mission will face, however, is political rather than technological, he argued. Iran’s neighbours will be largely unwilling to cooperate.

“Iraq offers Washington some leverage, but Iranian-aligned networks remain deeply embedded in its economy and security institutions,” he explained.

Azerbaijan could cooperate discreetly, while Turkmenistan would be “extremely reluctant” to jeopardise its neutrality or relationships with Russia and China, said the professor.

Pakistan is particularly unlikely to participate openly because it is currently mediating between Washington and Tehran, he added. Turkiye also has little interest in turning its border with Iran into another confrontation, said Krieg.

“Without these countries’ cooperation, Washington can disrupt individual networks but cannot effectively seal Iran’s borders,” he said.

Rami Khouri, a public policy fellow at the American University of Beirut and a non-resident senior fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC, has previously told Al Jazeera that Iran’s history as a trading nation for thousands of years makes the US mission near impossible.

“There’s an enormous web of contacts that Iran has had for thousands of years with traders and partners and allies all over the region, especially in Asia – it’s virtually impossible for the US to seal off every one,” he said.

“There are people all over the region who have links with Iran, some very close, some just commercial,” he said.

Mission creep or mission impossible?

Krieg expressed concern about the potential for mission creep — that the task force’s action could widen the war to new arenas.

“Intelligence gathering can quickly become pressure for seizures, border closures or military strikes against suspected logistical infrastructure,” he said.

“This would extend America’s economic war into the sovereign territory of neighbouring states.”

Iran’s response in turn would likely be asymmetrical, “intensifying maritime coercion in Hormuz and potentially using the Houthis to increase pressure around Bab al-Mandeb and Saudi Arabia”, Krieg added.

Joe Kent, a former top US counterterrorism official, has also argued that the new task force is an attempt by CENTCOM to subvert ongoing diplomatic efforts.

“This is CENTCOM inviting Iran to escalate while the vice president is attempting to negotiate with the Iranians,” Kent, who resigned in March in protest against the US’s war on Iran, said on X following the US military’s announcement.

“This is, as CENTCOM calls it, ‘policy by CONOP’, when the military finds a way to subvert the White House without blatantly disobeying the President, by taking actions that will ensure a war escalates or perpetuates.”

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, has reported that CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is among the many officials, alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, pressing Trump to renew attacks on Iran.

Some analysts, however, argue that without US access to the Caspian Sea, troops on the ground, or cooperation from neighbouring states, the task force will have limited practical impact.

Mahjoob Zweiri, a professor of contemporary history and politics at Qatar University, has told Al Jazeera that the new initiative may just be symbolic because of the lack of US military presence on the Caspian Sea.

“America has no access to the sea, unless some of the neighbouring countries like Azerbaijan or Armenia or others collaborate [with them] … And they’re not collaborating on this because they don’t want to upset Russia,” said Zweiri. “It will require … troops on the ground, and this is unlikely to happen.”

Tehran, Iran – The Iranian government has reported more strikes by the United States but insists this pressure will not impact its demands to end the war.

Ahmad Nafisi, deputy governor for Hormozgan, where the overnight US strikes hit, confirmed on Monday morning that the southern island of Qeshm was targeted but no residential and commercial areas or vital infrastructure were damaged.

The US did not directly acknowledge the air strikes, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated Washington’s characterisation of similar recent strikes on Qeshm as “defensive”. Previous attacks, the latest of which was acknowledged by President Donald Trump on Friday, have targeted Iranian air defences and radar installations.

Mediators are trying to prevent large-scale US attacks on Iran, which Trump has repeatedly threatened, with talks continuing. But Washington appears unwilling to accept Iran’s seven demands to end the war, which include the lifting of the US blockade on Iran’s southern ports and lifting sanctions on Tehran.

Seven demands

Esmail Baghaei, the spokesman of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on Monday rejected Rubio’s remarks that some of these seven demands were “ridiculous and really not realistic”.

“Iran’s plan is still the most logical plan on the table. I think it can lead to security returning to the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, and create the grounds for a process,” Baghaei said during a news conference in Tehran.

The terms mostly amount to a return to the Islamabad memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed in June between Iran and the US. But Tehran now has additional stipulations regarding the future of the Strait of Hormuz.

Baghaei said the US announcement of a reward of up to $20m for information on Iran’s nuclear programme is a ploy by the Trump administration to “convey the sense that the Iranian nuclear issue is still a threat”, after the Republican Party’s heavy defeats in midterm elections.

Tehran says it will not part with its highly enriched uranium, which is believed to be buried under the rubble of facilities bombed by the US and Israel last year. But it is open to downblending the material, which would be needed to build a nuclear bomb.

International inspectors have no access to Iranian nuclear sites, except for the Bushehr nuclear power plant, where the Foreign Ministry said there was a recent visit.

Iran has accused the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director, Rafael Grossi, of stepping out of their technical mandate and creating the grounds for attacks on nuclear facilities during last year’s 12-day war and the current war.

There have been signs of a positive breakthrough in mediation efforts, with reports that Trump and Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani will meet in the White House on Monday.

But Andreas Krieg, an associate professor at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that Washington’s biggest objection to the ongoing mediated talks is that Iran is essentially demanding the rewards of an agreement before providing the concessions to justify one.

“Reopening Hormuz within two days sounds accommodating, but it changes the timetable rather than the substance of the bargain,” he told Al Jazeera about the Iranian proposal.

Both the US and Iran’s Arab neighbours would not accept long-term Iranian-approved shipping corridors in the Strait of Hormuz.

Rubio and other officials are also against Iran’s demand for an end to hostilities across the region, as it would restrict Israel’s military freedom of action.

“Iran is going beyond a ceasefire, trying to translate its wartime leverage into a new regional security arrangement on its own terms,” Krieg said.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said Sunday that the country’s military mission in Iran remained unfinished, and threatened Lebanon’s Hezbollah with further territorial losses if it joined an Iranian attack.

Tankers and navigation systems targeted

Iranian authorities continue to warn ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz to refrain from taking “unauthorised” routes or face potential attacks.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) spokesman Hossein Mohebbi rejected the claim by the US that all naval mines have been cleared from the Strait of Hormuz.

“Nobody dares enter the Strait of Hormuz to remove the mines,” he said on Sunday.

Iranian state television reported on Monday that 11 tankers have been attacked over the past 10 days, with four unable to continue transit.

IRGC-affiliated media cited an unnamed IRGC Navy source as claiming on Monday that maritime navigation systems were targeted in the southern areas of the waterway overnight, preventing tankers from transiting as part of the US-coordinated oil shuttle system.

Trump played down the prospects of a return to all-out war with Iran on Sunday, but added that the US military had marked civilian infrastructure like 38 bridges as targets if the war restarts at scale.

Krieg said he expects Tehran to continue its strategy of “controlled escalation” rather than immediate all-out retaliation against the US strikes.

“The new American effort to disrupt Iran’s overland trade will reinforce this strategy. Tehran will increasingly seek to make the Gulf states bear the economic consequences of Washington’s decisions, hoping they will pressure Trump towards compromise,” Krieg said.

“Washington may believe it is conducting a limited campaign of coercion, while Tehran increasingly sees an unrestricted economic war against its survival. At some point, Iran may decide that the costs of continued restraint exceed the risks of escalation.”

Shortly after Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s visit to Riyadh last week, reports emerged that Damascus was aiding Saudi Arabia in its war against Yemen’s Houthis, an armed group also known as Ansar Allah (Arabic for Supporters of God) and backed by Iran.

Security and financial aid appeared to be the cornerstone of the meeting between al-Sharaa and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, which concluded with Riyadh pledging $403m in loans to help Syria rebuild infrastructure damaged by 13 years of its civil war.

Syria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates noted that cooperation between the two countries’ defence ministries was the “most notable” of the deals, but it did not elaborate.

Days after the visit concluded, media reports suggested Syria was sending fighters to Saudi Arabia to help fight the Houthis. The Reuters news agency reported that Syria was providing Riyadh with military advice and training inside the kingdom after Saudi cities were targeted in hundreds of Houthi missile attacks.

On Sunday, Syrian officials told The Associated Press news agency that Damascus has already sent Syrian military advisers to Saudi Arabia and 600 special forces were due to arrive in the kingdom next week.

Despite denying the initial reports, a Syrian government official told the state’s news agency SANA that Syrian soldiers were sent to Saudi Arabia in a “training, expertise exchange and military consultations” capacity.

“The Syrian role would probably count for more in Riyadh than on Yemen’s front lines because it would show that the new Syria can share a partner’s security burden,” Nanar Hawach, a Syrian analyst, told Al Jazeera, adding that even a training and support role from the Syrian government rather than a direct combat role would satisfy Riyadh.

“The reports and the denials can both be partly right since Syrian officers training Yemeni forces inside the kingdom is different from Syrian troops fighting in Yemen. If Syrian forces are involved, Damascus has good reasons to avoid acknowledging it, from avoiding retaliation to reassuring Syrians that rebuilding at home comes first,” Hawach explained.

Houthi threat

Yemen has been a central concern for Saudi Arabia since Houthi fighters captured the capital, Sanaa, in September 2014. Saudi Arabia has led an Arab military coalition to support Yemen’s internationally recognised government since March 2015. It has provided material and air support to anti-Houthi forces.

Saudi Arabia has been eager to form a regional military alliance that would help counter the threats from the Houthis and their patron Iran.

Tehran’s attacks on its Gulf neighbours since the US-Israel war on Iran began on February 28 and recent Houthi missile strikes on Saudi cities have highlighted the need for a regional security umbrella.

The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, agreed by Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan in August, has been viewed as a mechanism for this collective defence by many in Riyadh.

Syria and its thousands of battle-hardened soldiers with some expertise in drone warfare would be considered a useful addition to this alliance. The Syrian official who spoke to SANA said the current military arrangement between Damascus and Riyadh could lead to Syria joining the Mecca Defence Alliance.

“Interest in the Mecca pact could reflect Syria’s wish to anchor its recovery in a regional security framework. Yemen is far enough away for Damascus to present any role as standing by an Arab partner while Lebanon is next door, and intervention would reopen its history there and risk destabilising Syria itself,” Hawach said.

“However, distance does not make it cost-free. Confronting Iran’s allies anywhere invites retaliation, and soldiers killed far from home would be hard to justify to a public that expects peace to bring recovery.”

Syrian expertise

Syria’s post-war government has already come under pressure to act militarily outside its borders. US President Donald Trump has spoken numerous times this year about trying to get Syria to intervene in Lebanon to help disarm Hezbollah, another Iran-backed group.

Syrian rebels have been deployed to other conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa during their attempts to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s government from 2011 to 2024. Syrian fighters allegedly took part in Azerbaijan’s war against Armenia in 2020.

“Syrians are combat-experienced and -capable, and they’re cohesive, so there’s a potential tactical advantage there,” Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer on security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

“Overall, this is very much a common Saudi approach to strategy and security issues, basically leaning on partners they courted through diplomatic links.”

Since the fall of al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, Saudi Arabia is believed to have been instrumental in helping the US remove Assad-era sanctions on Syria, which has been critical in legitimising the post-war government in Damascus.

With Saudi Arabia now fully embroiled in the Yemen war by backing its internationally recognised government and being targeted by regular Houthi air attacks, the deployment of Syrian troops would provide it with additional expertise and guidance on how to confront the Houthis.

The AFP news agency reported that Syrians in Yemen are now leading drone operations against the Houthis although the Syrian government has denied these claims.

Samy Akil, senior programme adviser with The Syria Report website, said Syria’s cooperation gives Riyadh another ally in the region and potential partner in the Mecca Defence Alliance.

“Syria has so far tried to navigate different competing regional interests across several regional capitals. It tried to not align itself with a specific camp, but I think as time goes on, it needs to kind of start settling on [a] hierarchy in terms of regional partners, and obviously, Saudi Arabia is one of the top contenders to do so,” he told Al Jazeera.

“It’s basically signalling that Syria is willing to support and help with the limited resources and capabilities it has, but it also inadvertently legitimises the Syrian government’s foreign policy approach of supporting regional countries and kind of showcase that it is not only a country that is asking for support, but it is also a country willing to provide support.”

With Israeli raids and attacks on southwestern Syria continuing, Damascus could also benefit from having a regional power such as Saudi Arabia as an ally.

“The fact is that Syria recognises that it has little policy options to deter a further entrenchment of Israeli forces into southern Syria in [the] hope that the potential of joining the [Mecca] agreement would act somewhat of a deterrence to, at the very least, stop further encroachment of Israeli troops in Quneitra and Daraa.”

LOS ANGELES — A U.S. deportation flight of Iranian nationals bound for Iran by way of Pakistan was abruptly canceled Sunday morning, according to an attorney who spoke to some of the detainees scheduled for repatriation.

At least eight Iranians were loaded onto a plane Sunday morning in Mesa, Ariz., for a deportation flight headed to the Caucasus nation of Georgia, then on to Pakistan, according to Ali Rahnama, an attorney with the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund who filed emergency motions on behalf of some of the Iranian detainees. The flight was canceled without explanation, he said.

Court documents unsealed days ago in a civil lawsuit filed by the fund showed the Trump administration as recently as mid-October said it had plans to deport the Iranians to Iran, even as the war there drags on, via an unnamed third country. The lawsuit was filed in July and alleges that the U.S. government illegally shared confidential information with Iranian officials about Iranians seeking asylum in the U.S.

There were three deportation flights to Iran between September 2025 and January 2026, with more than 100 Iranian nationals deported. But the administration’s confirmation of the new plans amid the war that began with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February highlights its resolve in carrying out its hard-line immigration crackdown, which has involved ramping up removals, including to places that critics say could endanger the lives of the returnees.

Homeland Security response

In response to questions Sunday from the Associated Press, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not comment on “prospective removal operations, including flight schedules, passenger manifests, destinations, or individual case details,” nor would the agency confirm future removal operations.

“As promised, the Trump Administration is employing all lawful options to carry out the largest deportation operation in history,” the statement said.

The administration did not specify in the October court records when the deportations would be carried out. But in the last week, roughly a dozen Iranian nationals in immigration detention said they were notified that they were scheduled for an upcoming deportation flight to Pakistan and then to Iran, according to numerous attorneys who have since confirmed those plans with Homeland Security.

Iranian government contacts reported

According to Rahnama, the eight detainees who boarded the flight on Sunday were visited by a senior official with the Iranian Interests Section — an Iranian representative office in the Pakistani Embassy in Washington that handles consular affairs — and were told that the Iranian government would transport them from Pakistan to Iran.

In the litigation brought by the Iranian immigrant advocacy group, at least a dozen Iranian detainees have said they’ve been contacted by Iranian officials who had knowledge of sensitive information on their asylum claims.

U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a nominee of President Biden, has not ruled on the claims but ordered the U.S. government to give the court 24-hour notice of any finalized plans to deport Iranians to Iran or to any other country, and five days’ written notice before any such deportation is carried out.

In a court filing Sunday, the defense fund laid out what it had learned about plans for a removal flight Sunday and argued that the administration may have violated the judge’s directive to give advance notice of deportation plans.

Later Sunday, the government filed court documents in the case, but they were sealed and inaccessible to the public.

Group says individuals could face persecution

The Iranian American Legal Defense Fund has called for a halt to the removal flights, saying in a news release that they would “reportedly mark the first deportation of Iranians to Iran since the U.S.-Iran war began.”

The group’s executive director, Yasmine Chubin, said in a statement Sunday that it was difficult to comprehend why the U.S. would forcibly deport Iranians, including asylum seekers, to Iran, amid ongoing military hostilities.

The consequences of removal, Chubin said, “could be irreversible and individuals may face persecution, torture, or death.”

At least one person who had been part of the scuttled flight volunteered to go back to Iran after nearly two years of detention, Rahnama said, out of desperation to leave what he described as inhumane imprisonment. It’s not clear how many other of the deportees may have volunteered to leave.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Sarah Rankin in Richmond, Va., contributed to this report.

Trump says Washington’s land blockade on Iran is now in effect, as Tehran threatens to ‘rain down hell’ if US resumes attacks.

US President Donald Trump warns that United States forces are ‘locked and loaded’ and ready to strike if necessary.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has warned that Tehran will “rain down hell” if the United States resumes attacks, serving Washington with an ultimatum in an attempt to end the two countries’ eight-month war.

“Our 2-day proposal stands: meet the requirements, including end to war on all fronts, and you will see results,” Araghchi wrote in a post on X on Sunday.

“Or choose war, and see our alert and battle-hardened warriors rain down hell,” he said.

US President Donald Trump said on Sunday that renewed strikes on Iran are “highly unlikely” if negotiations progress over Tehran’s nuclear programme and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

‘Locked and loaded’

“It depends on whether or not they sign a very strong agreement,” Trump said when asked about continued US strikes on Iran during a phone interview reported by CNN. “I would [continue], if necessary, but we hit them really hard,” he added.

Trump warned that US forces have three aircraft carriers stationed in the region “fully locked and loaded”, ready to continue strikes if need be. He also said that the US has 38 bridges in Iran’s crosshairs that US forces “can knock down in literally one hour”.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry also quoted Araghchi in an earlier statement on Sunday that said Iran would “not go easy on American targets” in the region.

Araghchi’s statements came after reports by state media that an oil tanker caught fire earlier that morning after hitting a naval mine east of the Strait of Hormuz, citing Iran’s navy.

The navy claimed the ship’s identification systems were turned off and it was travelling in the no-go zone of the strait.

‘Devastating and severe’ response

An adviser to Iran’s commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Aerospace Force made threats that echoed those of the Iranian foreign minister and said that weapons have been “secured for years to come”.

“The armed forces are at the ready, and if the enemy makes a mistake, Iran’s response will be devastating and severe,” warned IRGC Brigadier-General Ali Belali in a statement on Telegram.

“As senior commanders of the armed forces have pointed out, we have upgraded our capabilities in the post-Ramadan War period,” Belali said.

The back-and-fourth between Iranian and US leaders comes following US midterm elections in which the Democratic Party won control of both chambers of Congress, soundly defeating Trump’s Republican Party.

Araghchi alleged that negotiations have been delayed as a result of the elections, but he awaits the path forward, Iranian state media reported.

“It will take some time for things to settle down and for the atmosphere to become conducive to the mediators resuming their visits,” the foreign minister said. “We have to wait.”

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders are placing an early emphasis on healthcare as they discuss their immediate priorities upon the swearing-in of the new Congress on Jan. 3.

Early votes in the House next year are expected to focus on boosting Medicaid and restoring an enhanced tax subsidy that is designed to lower the cost of Affordable Care Act health plans for millions of enrollees.

Democrats are also promising swift action on legislation to stop the war with Iran and to reverse some of President Trump’s tariffs.

“We’re going to get out of the gate fast,” said New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader who is in line to become the next House speaker.

The legislative flurry carries enormous stakes for Democrats as they seek to translate their sweeping victories in the midterms — their numbers will exceed 250 in the 435-member House — into achievements that deliver on their promises to lower the cost of living.

Obstacles for the Democratic agenda

Passing those bills should not be a problem with such a large Democratic House majority. Getting them signed into law most certainly could be.

A 60-vote threshold in the Senate looms for the legislation, as does a potential presidential veto. Trump on election night posted a photo on his social media site of a red hat with a simple message on it: “Veto.”

Following those early votes, Jeffries said five working groups are developing plans to put forward bills that would lower costs in areas such as housing, energy, groceries and caregiving.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) said Democrats will at some point take up legislation dealing with artificial intelligence and data centers. He is part of a group of lawmakers working on a document that will lay out some of the priorities for Jeffries to consider.

“House Republicans last year made a conscious decision to let the AI industry run wild, and that was a bad decision politically and a bad decision on policy,” Lieu said. “Two things will change next term. We will hold public hearings on AI. We will pass legislation, reasonable guardrails on AI, and specifically data centers.”

A return to past political fights

Democrats are trying to reverse Medicaid changes that are expected to cut more than $900 billion from the program over a decade. The Republican-approved cuts helped offset some of the costs of Trump’s big tax and spending cut bill that was signed into law last year. The Medicaid changes in the bill imposed new administrative requirements and added conditions for eligibility, including work requirements.

Some of the most substantial changes have yet to take effect. Still, enrollment in Medicaid has dropped by about 5 million, or about 7%, since July 2025, when the bill was signed into law, according to KFF, a health policy research and news organization.

Reversing those cuts would probably require Trump and the Republicans to abandon the hard-fought changes they made to cut entitlement spending in their signature tax bill. It’s an unlikely proposition.

The effort to extend enhanced tax subsidies for certain enrollees in ACA plans has also been debated and voted on in the current Congress. The measure passed the House with some Republican support but stalled in the Senate.

There also have been numerous war powers votes regarding Iran — 14 in the Senate and six in the House.

Gridlock may be on the horizon

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said going into the election that a Democratic majority in the next Congress would amount to “two years of paralysis.”

“I don’t think that’s good for anybody,” Thune said.

But Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York is insisting that his party will push its agenda with or without the Republican president’s help.

“If he vetoes it, it will show the divisions. As much as we didn’t want to shut down, when we shut down the government for a month over healthcare, people knew we were on their side,” Schumer said in an interview with the New York Times’ podcast “The Daily.”

Schumer said he believes Democrats can gain some Republican votes on restoring the enhanced subsidies for ACA plans. When asked if he was hearing from Republicans expressing a willingness to work with him on legislation, he replied: “They’re never so definitive but, yes, I am getting initial signs that way on certain issues, not on every issue.”

While the prospects for getting any of the early priority bills over the finish line are uncertain, the votes in Congress will help frame the choices voters will face during a presidential election in 2028.

Tensions within the new majority

Progressive groups call the agenda outlined by Jeffries a good early start, but they have much greater expectations for Democrats this Congress.

“It’s perfectly fine if the Senate and the House are unified and Donald Trump is standing in the way because that sets up another tidal wave election in 2028,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a Democratic-aligned group that backs progressive candidates and policies.

At the same time, he said Schumer cannot be content to let bills die in the Senate because of the 60-vote threshold.

“It will require the Democrats to get rid of the filibuster,” Green said. “There’s no doubt about it.”

He said there’s a disparity because Republicans’ top priorities — tax cuts and Supreme Court justices — can get through with simple majorities. But the Democratic Party’s top priorities require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

“The only question is will the American public trust Democrats enough to keep giving us more power or will this week’s gains whittle away because we do nothing? That’s why the filibuster is a threshold question,” Green said last week.

Schumer, in an interview with the Associated Press last week, would not say whether he would try to eliminate the filibuster.

“The focus has got to be on getting things done,” Schumer said. “That’s all I am saying.”

In a memo to fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said Democrats also need to target what he called “powerful forces outside of government.” Examples he cited were corporations using Americans’ private data to adjust their pricing based on a consumer’s personal data and AI companies that he says are putting jobs and lives at risk.

“By focusing not just on the Trump administration but also on big corporations and billionaires, we will show the American people we are not just anti-Trump but also pro-worker and pro-consumer,” Casar said.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

About 850,000 people lose power after Russian attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv.

More than 600,000 people in Ukraine’s eastern Dnipropetrovsk region are without electricity after a Russian overnight attack on an energy facility, a Ukrainian energy provider has said.

Residents across the Pavlohrad, Samarivskyi, Kamianske and Dnipro districts, as well as the city of Dnipro, faced electricity outages on Sunday, power company DTEK wrote in a Telegram post.

Engineers were at the scene attempting to restore the damaged facility, but “repairs are being complicated by repeated attacks”, DTEK said.

Ukraine is bracing for yet another harsh winter of war as Russia ramps up daily aerial attacks, raining down drones and missiles on the power network.

Another 250,000 Ukrainians were left without power in the Kharkiv region in northeastern Ukraine on Sunday after Russia struck an infrastructure facility there.

“No casualties have been reported, ” said Mykola Baksheyev, mayor of Zlatopil city, on Telegram.

“Power engineers are currently working to repair the damage; however, the exact timeframe for restoring the electricity supply remains unknown.”

The attacks came a day after Ukraine’s Ministry of Energy said a massive attack on energy facilities had plunged residents in five regions into darkness and significantly hampered electricity transmission in Kyiv.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has accused Russia of intensifying attacks to put pressure on Kyiv at United States-brokered trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence stated on its Telegram channel that its forces will “continue to carry out strikes against Ukrainian fuel and energy infrastructure facilities” that they say are used to aid the Ukrainian military.

The operation is to prevent Iran from using ground routes to transport weapons and other materials, US Central Command says.

The United States military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) has announced a plan to block Iran’s land-based supply routes, expanding its months-long naval blockade of Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz.

CENTCOM, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, announced on Saturday that it had established a new task force “to prevent Iran from using ground routes to transport advanced weapons and other materials”.

Task Force Iron Gate will reinforce “the success of our ironclad blockade against Iran at sea”, CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper said.

Based in Tampa, Florida, the task force will coordinate with other US government agencies “on preventing the movement of advanced weapons systems, dual-use technologies, sanctioned materials, and illegal revenue streams across Iran’s land borders and the Caspian Sea”, CENTCOM said.

Michael Mulroy, a former US deputy assistant defence secretary for the Middle East, told Al Jazeera the task force’s role will be to find out where “weapons systems are coming in, how they could potentially be cut off”, and how “Iran is transporting its energy”.

He added that if US President Donald Trump orders an escalation to the war, it will likely be attacks on this “series of targets”.

“Unlike Operation Epic Fury, which primarily focuses on military targets, I think these targets will be focused on economic and infrastructure targets, as part of this comprehensive plan to cut the regime off from its ability to fight and ability to fund itself,” Mulroy told Al Jazeera.

CENTCOM separately said on Saturday that it had disabled a commercial cargo vessel in the Gulf of Oman as part of its blockade of Iranian ports.

A US “military aircraft fired precision munitions at the stern of St. Kitts-flagged M/V Huda, disabling the ship after CENTCOM forces directed the crew to abandon targeted spaces”, it said in a statement.

“Enforcement actions since July have resulted in U.S. forces redirecting 147 commercial vessels that complied”, and disabling “five merchant ships that refused to comply”, it added.

Explosions reported

On Saturday, Iran’s official news agency IRNA reported the sound of two explosions on Qeshm Island, located in the Strait of Hormuz.

IRNA also reported the sound of “several explosions” in the cities of Jask, Sirik and Bandar Abbas.

Trump confirmed new strikes on Qeshm Island a day earlier, but downplayed them as “minor”. He added that Tehran still wants a deal as Qatari-mediated talks continue.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy reported that two oil tankers struck mines near the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday.

Iranian state television, citing the navy, said the tankers had passed through an “unsafe” part of the strait with their navigation systems off. They “suffered severe damage and stopped after hitting sea mines”.

Iranian state media report blasts in Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz and the cities of Jask, Sirik and Bandar Abbas.