Shutting off the internet within an entire country is a serious action. It severely limits people’s ability to freely communicate and to find reliable information during times of conflict.
In countries that have privatised mobile and internet providers, control is often exercised through legislation or through government directives – such as age restrictions on adult content. By contrast, Iran has spent years developing the capacity to directly control its telecommunications infrastructure.
So how can a country have broad control over internet access, and could this happen anywhere in the world?
How does ‘blocking the internet’ work?
The “internet” is a broad term. It covers many types of applications, services and, of course, the websites we’re familiar with.
A nation may opt to physically disconnect the incoming internet connectivity at the point of entry to the country (imagine pulling the plug on a telephone exchange).
This allows for easy recovery of service when the government is ready, but the impact will be far-reaching. Nobody in the country, including the government itself, will be able to connect to the internet – unless the government has its own additional, covert connectivity to the rest of the world.
This is where it gets more technical. Every internet-connected endpoint – laptop, computer, mobile phone – has an IP (internet protocol) address. They’re strings of numbers; for example, 77.237.87.95 is an address assigned to one of the internet service providers in Iran.
IP addresses identify the device on the public internet. However, since strings of numbers are not easy to remember, humans use domain names to connect to services – theconversation.com is an example of a domain name.
That connection between the IP address and the domain is controlled by the domain name system or DNS. It’s possible for a government to control access to key internet services by modifying the DNS – this manipulates the connection between domain names and their underlying numeric addresses.
An additional way to control the internet involves manipulating the traffic flow. IP addresses allow devices to send and receive data across networks controlled by internet service providers. In turn, they rely on the border gateway protocol (BGP) – think of it like a series of traffic signs which direct internet traffic flow, allowing data to move around the world.
Governments could force local internet service providers to remove their BGP routes from the internet. As a result, the devices they service wouldn’t be able to connect to the internet. In the same manner, the rest of the world would no longer be able to “see” into the country.
These events clearly show that if a government anywhere in the world wants to turn off the internet, it really can. The democratic state of the country is the most significant influence on the willingness to undertake such action – not the technical capability.
However, in today’s world, being disconnected from the internet will heavily impact people’s lives, jobs and the economy. It’s not an action to be taken lightly.
How can people evade internet controls?
Virtual private networks or VPNs have long been used to hide communications in countries with strict internet controls, and continue to be an effective internet access method for many people. (However, there are indications Iran has clamped down on VPN use in recent times.)
However, VPNs won’t help when the internet is physically disconnected. Depending on configuration, if BGP routes are blocked, this may also prevent any VPN traffic from reaching the target.
This is where independent satellite internet services open up the most reliable alternative. Satellite internet is great for remote and rural areas where traditional internet service providers have yet to establish their cabling infrastructure – or can’t do so.
Even if traditional wired or wireless internet connections are unavailable, services such as Starlink, Viasat, Hughesnet and others can provide internet access through satellites orbiting Earth.
To use satellite internet, users rely on antenna kits supplied by providers. In Iran, Elon Musk’s Starlink was activated during the blackout, and independent reports suggest there are thousands of Starlink receivers secretly operating in the country.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
On June 21, the United States launched airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities – Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan – pounding deeply buried centrifuge sites with bunker-busting bombs.
Conducted jointly with Israel, the operation took place without formal congressional authorisation, drawing sharp criticism from lawmakers that it was unconstitutional and “unlawful”.
Much of the political debate has centred on whether the US is being pulled into “another Middle East war”.
The New York Times’ Nick Kristof weighed in on the uncertainties following the US’ surprise bombing of Iran and Tehran’s retaliation.
Even US Vice President JD Vance understood the unease, stating:
People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.
These reactions have revived comparisons with George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq: a Republican president launching military action on the basis of flimsy weapons of mass destruction (WMD) evidence.
Hauntingly familiar?
While the surface similarity is tempting, the comparison may in fact obscure more about President Donald Trump than it reveals.
Comparisons to the Iraq War
In 2003, Bush ordered a full-scale invasion of Iraq based on flawed intelligence, claiming Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. And while the war was extremely unpopular across the world, it did have bipartisan congressional support.
The invasion toppled Iraq’s regime in just a few weeks.
What followed was a brutal conflict and almost a decade of US occupation. The war triggered the rise of militant jihadism and a horrific sectarian conflict that reverberates today.
So far, Trump’s one-off strikes on Iran bear little resemblance to the 2003 Iraq intervention.
These were precision strikes within the context of a broader Iran-Israel war, designed to target Iran’s nuclear program.
And, so far, there appears to be little appetite for a full-scale military invasion or “boots on the ground”, and regime change seems unlikely despite some rumblings from both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yet the comparison to Iraq persists, especially among audiences suspicious of repeated US military interventions in the Middle East. But poorly considered analogies carry costs.
For one, the Iraq comparison sheds little light on Trump’s foreign policy.
To better understand the recent strikes on Iran, we need to look at Trump’s broader foreign policy.
Much has been made of his “America first” mantra, a complex mix of prioritising domestic interests, questioning international agreements, and challenging traditional alliances.
Others, including Trump himself, have often touted his “no war” approach, pointing to large-scale military withdrawals from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq,and the fact he had not started a new war.
But beyond this, Trump has increased US military spending and frequently used his office to conduct targeted strikes on adversaries – especially across the Middle East.
For example, in 2017 and 2018, Trump ordered airstrikes on a Syrian airbase and chemical weapons facilities. In both instances, he bypassed Congress and used precision air power to target weapons infrastructure without pursuing regime change.
Also, from 2017 to 2021, Trump authorised US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, enabling airstrikes that targeted militant cells but also led to mass civilian casualties.
Trump’s policy was the subject of intense bipartisan opposition, culminating in the first successful congressional invocation of the War Powers Resolution – though it was ultimately vetoed by Trump.
And in 2020, Trump launched a sequence of attacks on Iranian assets in Iraq. This included a drone strike that killed senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani.
Again, these attacks were conducted without congressional support. The decision triggered intense bipartisan backlash and concerns about escalation without oversight.
While such attacks are not without precedent – think back to former US President Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya or Joe Biden’s targeting of terrorist assets – the scale and veracity of Trump’s attacks on the Middle East are much more useful as a framework to understanding the recent attacks on Iran than any reference to the 2003 Iraq war.
What this reveals about Trump
It is crucial to scrutinise any use of force. But while comparing the 2025 Iran strikes to Iraq in 2003 may be rhetorically powerful, it is analytically weak.
A better path is to situate these events within Trump’s broader political style.
He acts unilaterally and with near-complete impunity, disregarding traditional constraints and operating outside established norms and oversight.
This is just as true for attacks on foreign adversaries as it is for the domestic policy arena.
For example, Trump recently empowered agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to operate with sweeping discretion in immigration enforcement, bypassing legal and judicial oversight.
Trump also uses policy as spectacle, designed to send shockwaves through the domestic or foreign arenas and project dominance to both friend and foe.
In this way, Trump’s dramatic attacks on Iran have some parallels to his unilateral imposition of tariffs on international trade. Both are abrupt, disruptive and framed as a demonstration of strength rather than a way to create a mutually beneficial solution.
Finally, Trump is more than willing to use force as an instrument of power rather than as a last resort. This is just as true for Iran as it is for the US people.
The recent deployment of US Marines to quell protests in Los Angeles reveals a similar impulse: military intervention as a first instinct in the absence of a broader strategy to foster peace.
To truly understand and respond to Trump’s Iran strikes, we need to move beyond sensationalist analogies and recognise a more dangerous reality. This is not the start of another Iraq; it’s the continuation of a presidency defined by impulsive power, unchecked force and a growing disdain for democratic constraint.
Benjamin Isakhan receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Defence. The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of Government policy.
After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades.
Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach.
If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict.
As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side, or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains.
What did each side gain?
The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself.
This was made possible largely due to Israel’s success over the past two years in weakening Iran’s regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria.
Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high.
Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran’s primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact.
Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel’s attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel.
Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities.
Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues.
As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy’s will and capacity to resist.
While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium.
Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity.
Sticking point over Iran’s nuclear program
Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability.
That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.)
Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%.
Trump declared Iran’s nuclear capacity had been “totally obliterated”, whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran’s facilities was “very significant”.
However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame.
And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program appear slimmer than ever.
What might future deterrence look like?
The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward.
For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran’s leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia.
As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially.
At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters.
Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.
In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran’s nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary.
Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning.
Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In a decade of international security crises, this could be the most serious. Is there still time to prevent this from happening?
A successful but vulnerable treaty
In May 2015, I attended the five-yearly review conference of the NPT. Delegates debated a draft outcome for weeks, and then, not for the first time, went home with nothing. Delegates from the US, United Kingdom and Canada blocked the final outcome to prevent words being added that would call for Israel to attend a disarmament conference.
Russia did the same in 2022 in protest at language on its illegal occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine.
Now, in the latest challenge to the NPT, Israel and the US have bombed Iran’s nuclear complexes to ostensibly enforce a treaty neither one respects.
When the treaty was adopted in 1968, it allowed the five nuclear-armed states at the time – the US, Soviet Union, France, UK and China – to join if they committed not to pass weapons or material to other states, and to disarm themselves.
All other members had to pledge never to acquire nuclear weapons. Newer nuclear powers were not permitted to join unless they gave up their weapons.
Israel declined to join, as it had developed its own undeclared nuclear arsenal by the late 1960s. India, Pakistan and South Sudan have also never signed; North Korea was a member but withdrew in 2003. Only South Sudan does not have nuclear weapons today.
To make the obligations enforceable and strengthen safeguards against the diversion of nuclear material to non-nuclear weapons states, members were later required to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol. This gave the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wide powers to inspect a state’s nuclear facilities and detect violations.
It was the IAEA that first blew the whistle on Iran’s concerning uranium enrichment activity in 2003. Just before Israel’s attacks this month, the organisation also reported Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT for the first time in two decades.
The NPT is arguably the world’s most universal, important and successful security treaty, but it is also paradoxically vulnerable.
The treaty’s underlying consensus has been damaged by the failure of the five nuclear-weapon states to disarm as required, and by the failure to prevent North Korea from developing a now formidable nuclear arsenal.
North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003, tested a weapon in 2006, and now may have up to 50 warheads.
Iran could be next.
How things can deteriorate from here
Iran argues Israel’s attacks have undermined the credibility of the IAEA, given Israel used the IAEA’s new report on Iran as a pretext for its strikes, taking the matter out of the hands of the UN Security Council.
For its part, the IAEA has maintained a principled position and criticised both the US and Israeli strikes.
Iran has retaliated with its own missile strikes against both Israel and a US base in Qatar. In addition, it wasted no time announcing it would withdraw from the NPT.
On June 23, an Iranian parliament committee also approved a bill that would fully suspend Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, including allowing inspections and submitting reports to the organisation.
Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, said the US strikes:
[…] delivered a fundamental and irreparable blow to the international non-proliferation regime conclusively demonstrating that the existing NPT framework has been rendered ineffective.
Even if Israel and the US consider their bombing campaign successful, it has almost certainly renewed the Iranians’ resolve to build a weapon. The strikes may only delay an Iranian bomb by a few years.
Iran will have two paths to do so. The slower path would be to reconstitute its enrichment activity and obtain nuclear implosion designs, which create extremely devastating weapons, from Russia or North Korea.
Alternatively, Russia could send Iran some of its weapons. This should be a real concern given Moscow’s cascade of withdrawals from critical arms control agreements over the last decade.
An Iranian bomb could then trigger NPT withdrawals by other regional states, especially Saudi Arabia, who suddenly face a new threat to their security.
Why Iran might now pursue a bomb
Iran’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria’s Assad regime certainly shows it is a dangerous international actor. Iranian leaders have also long used alarming rhetoric about Israel’s destruction.
However repugnant the words, Israeli and US conservatives have misjudged Iran’s motives in seeking nuclear weapons.
Israel fears an Iranian bomb would be an existential threat to its survival, given Iran’s promises to destroy it. But this neglects the fact that Israel already possesses a potent (if undeclared) nuclear deterrent capability.
Israeli anxieties about an Iranian bomb should not be dismissed. But other analysts (myself included) see Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons capability more as a way to establish deterrence to prevent future military attacks from Israel and the US to protect their regime.
Iranians were shaken by Iraq’s invasion in 1980 and then again by the US-led removal of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. This war with Israel and the US will shake them even more.
Last week, I felt that if the Israeli bombing ceased, a new diplomatic effort to bring Iran into compliance with the IAEA and persuade it to abandon its program might have a chance.
However, the US strikes may have buried that possibility for decades. And by then, the damage to the nonproliferation regime could be irreversible.
Anthony Burke received funding from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council for a project on global nuclear governance (2014–17).
In our guides to the classics, experts explain key literary works.
Ibn Battuta, was born in Tangier, Morocco, on February 24, 1304. From a statement in his celebrated travel book the Rihla (“legal affairs are my ancestral profession,”) he evidently came from an intellectually distinguished family.
According to the Rihla (travelogue), Ibn Battuta embarked on his travels from Tangier at the age of 22 with the intention of performing the Hajj (the sacred pilgrimage to Mecca) in 1325. Although he returned to Fez (his adopted home-town) around the end of 1349, he continued to visit various regions, including Granada and Sudan, in subsequent years.
Over the course of his almost 30 years of travel, Ibn Battuta covered an astonishing distance of approximately 73,000 miles (117,000 kilometres), visiting a region that today encompasses more than 50 countries. His journeys covered much of the medieval Islamic world and beyond, excluding Northern Europe.
In 1355, he returned to Morocco for the last time and remained there for the rest of his life. Upon his return he dictated his experiences, observations and anecdotes to the Andalusian scholar Ibn Juzayy, with a compilation of his travels completed in 1355 or 1356.
The work, formally titled A Gift to Researchers on the Curiosities of Cities and the Marvels of Journeys, is more commonly referred to as Rihlat Ibn Battuta or simply Rihla.
A painting of Ibn Battuta (on right) in Egypt by Leon Benett. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
More than a travelogue or geographical record, this book provides rich insights into 14th-century social and political life, capturing cultural diversity across nations. Ibn Battuta details local lifestyles, linguistic traits, beliefs, clothing, cuisines, holidays, artistic traditions and gender relations, as well as commercial activities and currencies.
His observations also include geographical features such as mountains, rivers and agricultural products. Notably, the work highlights his encounters with over 60 sultans and more than 2,000 prominent figures, making it a valuable historical resource.
The travels
His travels began after a dream. According to Ibn Battuta, one night, while in Fuwwa, a town near Alexandria in Egypt, he dreamed of flying on a massive bird across various lands, landing in a dark, greenish country.
To test the local sheikh’s mystical knowledge, he decided if the sheikh knew of his dream, he was truly extraordinary. The next morning, after leading the dawn prayer, he saw the sheikh bid farewell to visitors. Later, the sheikh astonishingly revealed knowledge of Ibn Battuta’s dream and prophesied his pilgrimage through Yemen, Iraq, Turkey and India.
At the time, the Middle East was under the rule of the Mamluk sultanate, Anatolia was divided among principalities and the Mongol Ilkhanate state controlled Iran, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent.
Ibn Battuta initially travelled through North Africa, Egypt, Palestine and Syria, completing his first Hajj in 1326.
He then visited Iraq and Iran, returning to Mecca. In 1328, he explored East Africa, reaching Mogadishu, Mombasa, Sudan and Kilwa (modern Tanzania), as well as Yemen, Oman and Anatolia, where he documented cities like Alanya, Konya, Erzurum, Nicaea and Bursa.
His descriptions are vivid. Describing the city of Dimyat, on the bank of the Nile, he says:
Many of the houses have steps leading down to the Nile. Banana trees are especially abundant there, and their fruit is carried to Cairo in boats. Its sheep and goats are allowed to pasture at liberty day and night, and for this reason the saying goes of Dimyat, ‘Its wall is a sweetmeat and its dogs are sheep’. No one who enters the city may afterwards leave it except by the governor’s seal […]
Farmland on the banks of the Nile river today. Alice-D/shutterstock
When it comes to Anatolia (in modern-day Turkey), he declares:
This country, known as the Land of Rum, is the most beautiful in the world. While Allah Almighty has distributed beauty to other lands separately, He has gathered them all here. The most beautiful and well-dressed people live in this land, and the most delicious food is prepared here […] From the moment we arrived, our neighbors — both men and women — showed great concern for our wellbeing. Here, women do not shy away from men; when we departed, they bid us farewell as if we were family, expressing their sadness through tears.
A judge and husband
In 1332, Ibn Battutua met the Byzantine Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
Since Ibn Battuta dictated his work, it’s difficult to assess the extent of the scribe’s influence in recording his narratives. Despite being an educated man, he occasionally narrates like a commoner and sometimes exceeds the bounds of polite language. At times, he provides excessive detail, giving the impression he may be quoting from sources beyond his own observations.
Nevertheless, the Rihla stands out for its engaging style and captivating anecdotes, drawing readers in.
Ibn Battuta later journeyed through Crimea, Central Asia, Khwarezm (a large oasis region in the territories of present-day Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), Bukhara (a city in Uzbekistan), and the Hindu Kush Mountains. In 1332, he met Byzantine Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos and travelled to Istanbul with the caravan of Uzbek Khan’s third wife. He mentions a caravan that even has a market:
Whenever the caravan halted, food was cooked in great brass cauldrons, called dasts, and supplied from them to the poorer pilgrims and those who had no provisions. […] This caravan contained also animated bazaars and great supplies of luxuries and all kinds of food and fruit. They used to march during the night and light torches in front of the file of camels and litters, so that you saw the countryside gleaming with light and the darkness turned into radiant day.
Ibn Battuta arrived in Delhi in 1333, where he served as a judge under Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq for seven years. He married or was married to local women in many of the places he stayed. Among his wives were ordinary people as well as the daughters of the administrative class.
Miniature painting in Mughal style depicting the court of Muhammad bin Tughluq. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
The Sultan’s generosity, intelligence and unconventional ruling style both impressed and surprised Ibn Battuta. However, Muhammad bin Tughluq was known for making excessively harsh and abrupt decisions at times, which led Ibn Battuta to approach him with caution. Nevertheless, with the Sultan’s support, he remained in India for a long time and was eventually chosen as an ambassador to China in 1341.
In 1345 his mission was disrupted when his ship capsized off the coast of Calcutta (then known as Sadqawan) in the Indian Ocean. Though he survived, he lost most of his possessions.
After the incident, he remained in India for a while before continuing his journey by other means. During this period, he travelled through India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. He served as a judge in the latter for one and a half years. In 1345, he journeyed to China via Bengal, Burma and Sumatra, reaching the city of Guangzhou but limiting his exploration to the southern coast.
He was among the first Arab travellers to record Islam’s spread in the Malay Archipelago, noting interactions between Muslims and Hindu-Buddhist communities. Visiting Java and Sumatra, he praised Sultan Malik al-Zahir of Sumatra as a generous, pious and scholarly ruler and highlighted his rare practice of walking to Friday prayers.
On his return, Ibn Battuta explored regions such as Iran, Iraq, North Africa, Spain and the Kingdom of Mali, documenting the vast Islamic world.
Back in his homeland, Ibn Battuta served as a judge in several locations. He died around 1368-9 while serving as a judge in Morocco and was buried in his birthplace, Tangier.
Historic copy of selected parts of the Travel Report by Ibn Battuta, 1836 CE, Cairo. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
The status of women
Ibn Battuta’s travels revealed intriguing insights into the status of women across regions. In inner West Africa, he observed matriarchal practices where lineage and inheritance were determined by the mother’s family.
Among Turks, women rode horses like raiders, traded actively and did not veil their faces.
In the Maldives, husbands leaving the region had to abandon their wives. He noted that Muslim women there, including the ruling woman, did not cover their heads. Despite attempting to enforce the hijab as a judge, he failed.
He offers fascinating insights into food cultures. In Siberia, sled dogs were fed before humans. He described 15-day wedding feasts in India.
He tried local produce such as mango in the Indian subcontinent, which he compared to an apple, and sun-dried, sliced fish in Oman.
Religious practices
Ibn Battuta’s accounts of the Hajj (pilgrimage) rituals he performed six times provide a unique perspective. He references a fatwa by Ibn Taymiyyah, prominent Islamic scholar and theologian known for his opposition to theological innovations and critiques of Sufism and philosophy, advising against shortening prayers for those travelling to Medina.
Ibn Battuta’s accounts, particularly regarding the Iranian region, offer important perspectives into religious sects during a period when Iran started shifting from Sunnism to Shiism. He describes societies with diverse demographics, including Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis. His observations on religious practices are especially significant.
Inclined toward Sufism, Ibn Battuta often dressed like a dervish during his travels. He offers a compelling view of Islamic mysticism. He considered regions like Damascus as places of abundance and Anatolia as a land of compassion, interpreting them with a spiritual perspective.
His accounts of Sufi education, dervish lodges, zawiyas (similar to monasteries), and tombs, along with the special invocations of Sufi masters, are important historical records. He also observed and documented unique practices, such as the followers of the Persian Sufi saint Sheikh Qutb al-Din Haydar wearing iron rings on their hands, necks, ears, and even private parts to avoid sexual intercourse.
While Ibn Battuta primarily visited Muslim lands, he also travelled to non-Muslim territories, offering key understandings into different religious cultures, for instance interactions between Crimean Muslims and Christian Armenians in the Golden Horde region.
He also documented churches, icons and monasteries, such as the tomb of the Virgin Mary in Jerusalem. His observation of Muslims openly reciting the call to prayer (adhan) in China is significant.
Other anecdotes include the division of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus into a mosque and Christian church. Most importantly, his encounters with Hindus and Buddhists in the Indian subcontinent and Malay Islands provide rich historical context.
His accounts of death rituals reveal diverse practices. In Sinop (a city in Turkey), 40 days of mourning were declared for a ruler’s mother, while in Iran, a funeral resembled a wedding celebration. He observed similarities in cremation practices between India and China and described a chilling custom in some regions where slaves and concubines were buried alive with the deceased.
Ibn Battuta’s Rihla, widely translated into Eastern and Western languages, has drawn some criticism for containing depictions that sometimes diverge from historical continuity or borrow from other works. Ibn Battuta himself admitted to using earlier travel books as references.
Despite limited recognition in older sources, the Rihla gained prominence in the West in the 19th century. His legacy remains vibrant today. Morocco declared 1996–1997 the “Year of Ibn Battuta,” and established a museum in Tangier to honour him. In Dubai, a mall is named after him.
Notably, Ibn Battuta travelled to more destinations than Marco Polo and shared a broader range of humane anecdotes, showcasing the depth and diversity of his experiences.
Ismail Albayrak does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
It’s almost a decade since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started a worldwide trend and sparked fierce debate when he knelt during the US national anthem.
In 2016, Kaepernick refused to follow the pre-game protocol related to the national anthem and knelt instead, saying:
I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour.
Soon, many athletes and teams began “taking a knee” at sports events to express their solidarity with victims of racial injustice.
Following the intense public debate over the appropriateness of Kaepernick’s act, the ritual quickly spread worldwide, with athletes in major soccer leagues, cricket, rugby, Formula 1, top-tier tennis and the US’s Major League Baseball and National Basketball Association taking a knee.
Athletes didn’t always kneel during national anthems, with the majority kneeling at certain points pre-game.
Despite the occasional “defection” of a small number of players who would stand while their teammates knelt – such as Israel Folau in rugby league, Wilfried Zaha in soccer and Quinton de Kock in cricket – the ritual was widely embraced by teams and athletes and helped raise awareness of the issue.
Even major sports organisations notorious for prohibiting any type of political activism generally accepted the kneeling ritual. For example, soccer’s International Football Federation (FIFA) showcased kneeling as a “stand against discrimination” and as human rights advocacy.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) initially stood firm by its Rule 50, which states “no kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.
But just three weeks before the 2021 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo, the IOC relaxed its interpretation, and athletes were permitted to express their views in ways that included taking a knee.
A surprising turn of events
Despite permission and even encouragement from sports governing bodies, our research shows the practice is disappearing from major sports competitions.
Take soccer, for example. At the FIFA World Cup 2022, England and Wales were the only national teams that knelt at their games in Qatar.
At the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 in Australia and New Zealand, no teams or players knelt.
The same happened at the 2024 Olympic soccer tournament in Paris.
That only a handful of teams knelt in Tokyo at the 2021 Olympics, two at the FIFA Mens’ World Cup in Qatar in 2022, none at the FIFA Womens’ World Cup in Australia and New Zealand in 2023, and again none at the Paris 2024 Olympics indicates a growing reluctance throughout the sports world.
This surely cannot mean athletes have become indifferent to racial injustice or other forms of oppression in the interval between the late 2010s and the mid-2020s.
The explanation must be sought elsewhere. A hint was provided when Crystal Palace soccer player Zaha, the first player of colour in the UK who refused to kneel, explained:
I feel like taking the knee is degrading, because growing up my parents just let me know that I should be proud to be Black no matter what and I feel like we should just stand tall.
The explanation may therefore be, at least in part, the players’ uncomfortable feelings related to the kneeling posture.
In sociology, this bothersome state of mind is called “cognitive dissonance”: the mental conflict a person experiences in the presence of contrasting beliefs.
A history of kneeling
The body posture of kneeling is not deemed, in any culture, as expressing solidarity.
Ancient Greek and the Roman societies, on whose values Western civilisation was built, rejected kneeling as improper, even when praying to gods.
When performed outside the church, kneeling meant submission to nobility or royalty.
The significance of kneeling as humility is not limited to the Western world.
In African tribal culture, the young kneel in front of elders, and everyone kneels before the king.
In China in 1949, Chairman Mao famously proclaimed at the first plenary of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference:
From now on our nation […] will no longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up.
With this in mind, kneeling may be deemed unfit at sporting events, which often feature a powerful cocktail of emotions, values and social expectations.
The inconsistency between the excitement of competition and the expectation to kneel — a gesture associated with submission and humility — likely creates a bothersome state of mind for athletes.
This potentially motivates some players to reject one of the two – in this case, the kneeling – to restore cognitive harmony.
What could replace the kneeling ritual?
After refusing, by unanimous players’ vote, to take a knee before their October 2020 game against the All Blacks, the Australian rugby union team chose instead to wear a First Nations jersey.
The same year, several teams in German soccer’s top league chose to show their support for Black Lives Matter by wearing distinctive armbands.
So it appears wearing a distinctive jersey or at least an armband is more easily accepted by modern-day athletes. This may be challenging given the governing bodies of many sports, such as FIFA, ban athletes from wearing political symbols on their clothing.
Depending on whether sports code accept this type of activism in the future, wearing suportive clothing could replace taking a knee as symbolic communication of solidarity with oppressed minorities.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
We know surprisingly little about the lives of children in ancient Egypt.
And what records we do have about them often concern the lives of the elite – the young king or the children of senior officials. They are more prominent in surviving material evidence, especially funerary art. Infant mortality rates were high in ancient Egypt.
As a result, much of the work in Egyptology on representations of childhood in ancient Egypt is dominated by evidence for the lives of boys and young adult men.
But what were the lives of ordinary girls like in ancient Egypt? And how did they make their way in a deeply patriarchal culture?
Finding hieroglyphic words for girls
An initial problem in studying girls’ lives in ancient Egypt is answering the question: who was a girl in ancient Egypt?
Chronological age was not always recorded by ancient Egyptians in their letters or inscriptions.
Instead, more general words and hieroglyphic signs tended to accompany images of men, women and children to indicate their social roles.
These words and signs were only loosely associated with biological development.
Hieroglyphic words for infants and small children, for instance, could be marked with an image of a small, seated child – sometimes with a finger held to its mouth.
Among the words used to describe young girls – talking, walking, and participating alongside adults in their work – was sheriyt.
This is the word often found in ancient accounting documents recording payments of wages, indicating a girl-child worker. They are distinguished from older women in these documents, although it is difficult to know precisely how young they might have been.
In this way, written administrative records and archaeological evidence reveals girls of many social classes were integrated into economic production from an early age.
Payment for work
Elephantine, a town at Egypt’s southern frontier near modern-day Aswan, provides a unique window into the urban life of some girls who worked in textile workshops during the ancient Egyptian Middle Kingdom, which dates approximately 2030–1650 BCE.
First published in 1996, archaeologists found a ceramic bowl repurposed as a writing surface in a house in the densely packed urban settlement.
The excavators initially dated the bowl to the reign of King Amenemhat III, who ruled almost 3,800 years ago. However, based on the style of writing and the types of names listed, some scholars have also dated it earlier. It contains lists of payments of provisions of grain for textile workers over the course of a month.
What makes this document so important is that it names at least 18 child workers. Of these, 11 are girls, clearly marked with the Egyptian word sheriyt, working alongside 28 adult women.
The list shows adult women in this workshop received between 50–57 heqat (around 240–274 litres) of grain – although it’s not entirely clear if this was a one-off payment, a payment per month, or something else. The girls earned smaller but still significant wages of 3–7 heqat (around 14–34 litres).
Some other adult women seem to have also received comparable provisions to the girls, although without further information it is difficult know their social status or age.
This document not only confirms that girls received payment for their labour. It also suggests a structured apprenticeship system where young girls (and boys) worked alongside experienced craftswomen.
Archaeological evidence suggests textile production occurred both within homes and in dedicated workshops.
Evidence from the excavations at Elephantine suggests homes had several rooms with multiple purposes, including courtyards, entrance vestibules, kitchens with ovens (recognisable by blackened walls and ash deposits), and possible stairs leading to roof spaces.
Privacy would have been limited. Daily life would have included close interaction with animals, as evidenced by attached animal pens.
More recently, close to the house where the provision list was discovered, archaeologists found needles, spindles, shuttles, and remains of pegs for a large loom.
These were found both inside houses and in the courtyards attached to them.
It’s hard to know what exactly these buildings were for; they probably served multiple purposes.
Lives shaped by class and legal status
Not all girls at Elephantine had the same experience of life. The town’s position at Egypt’s southern frontier in this period meant it was home to diverse populations, which included migrants, enslaved people and transitory workers.
A letter dating to the reign of King Amenemhat III documents some families, including women and children, arriving at Elephantine seeking work during a famine in their home region.
This evidence can be compared to a legal document from the same time period but from another Egyptian town, El Lahun. This document mentions the purchase and transfer of enslaved women and infants who are called Aamut, referring to a region in West Asia. The document shows they have been given new Egyptian names.
These documents remind us factors such as class and legal status have always profoundly shaped girls’ lives.
Valuing the work of girls
Accessing the everyday thoughts, feelings, and perspectives of many ancient people, especially children, is challenging for historians. We don’t, for instance, have a wealth of personal diaries from ancient Egypt to learn about girls’ interior lives.
But what’s clear is that girls were not merely passive participants in society. They were active economic contributors, who often received formal compensation for their work.
Historians must always look beyond elite contexts to incorporate diverse evidence types – administrative documents, archaeological remains, and artistic representations – to construct a more complete picture of ancient lives.
Julia Hamilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States Navy (Logistics Group Western Pacific)
VIRAC, Philippines (June 12, 2025) — The tropical heat of Virac felt familiar to Hawaii Army National Guard Spc. Elvis Lorenz T. Salinas. This wasn’t a vacation, however. As a 12B Combat Engineer with the Hawaii Army National Guard’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP) Search and Extraction team, Salinas was participating in Pacific Partnership, a multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster relief preparedness mission.
Born in Manila, Salinas immigrated to Hawaii in 2015 and joined the Guard to serve his new home while staying connected to his roots. The mission to the Philippines was deeply personal. “It feels like coming full circle,” Salinas explained. “I left for better opportunities, and now I get to come back and support local communities. It’s very humbling.”
Salinas’s Filipino heritage proved invaluable. Speaking the language and understanding the culture allowed him to easily communicate with local firefighters, Armed Forces of the Philippines service members, and volunteers.
“My heritage allows me to connect with people on a deeper level,” said Salinas. “I speak the language, I understand the culture, and I know how important family and community are here. It has helped build trust quickly, and I think it reminds both sides that we’re all working together as partners.”
The Hawaii National Guard team provided training in structural collapse, confined space rescue, and disaster preparedness, working side-by-side with local responders.
Salinas was impressed by the professionalism of the Philippine military. “We talked stories with each other, shared meals … It reminded me that what we do affects real people and real lives.”
“I never imagined I’d have the chance to return in this capacity,” Salinas reflected. He hopes the local community gains tools for future disaster response. “To my family and all Filipinos, I thank you for your strength, resilience, and warm hearts. I’m proud to represent our people here, and I promise to continue serving with honor and compassion. Mabuhay kayo!”
Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increase security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific.
For updates and multimedia from Pacific Partnership 2025, follow #PacificPartnership, #PP25, and #PacificPartnership25 on social media or visit: https://www.dvidshub.net/feature/PacificPartnership
Source: United States Navy (Logistics Group Western Pacific)
VIRAC, CATANDUANES, Philippines (June 12, 2025) — Pacific Partnership 2025 successfully concluded its mission in Virac, Philippines, marking the end of a series of intensive training exercises and collaborative engagements aimed at strengthening disaster response capabilities and fostering lasting partnerships, June 12, 2025.
Over the past two weeks, members of the Hawaii National Guard, the Center for Excellence-Disaster Management, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) worked alongside local emergency responders and civilian authorities, focusing on urban search and rescue (USAR), Incident Command System (ICS) training, and a disaster management workshop. These activities were designed to enhance technical skills, exercise coordination frameworks, and support community-based resilience initiatives, ultimately increasing natural disaster preparedness in Virac and the greater Catanduanes province.
“Catanduanes is frequently hit by typhoons year-round and the people here have learned to adapt in their own ways; they can still smile and laugh right after their properties were damaged by storm,” said Armed Forces of the Philippines Air Force Lt. Col. Gil L Andal, the AFP Officer in Charge. “The AFP, as a regular partner, is committed to continually improving the synergy in disaster response mechanisms in vulnerable communities to foster resilience built with strong capabilities”
The ICS and disaster management workshops, modelled after the U.S. National Incident Management System (NIMS), provided a standardized framework for incident management, improving disaster preparedness and response capabilities. The Hawaii National Guard and AFP’s USAR component focused on lifesaving operations in challenging environments, including hands-on training in simulated collapsed structure rescue, shoring and stabilization techniques, and rubble pile operations.
“The success of Pacific Partnership in Virac is a testament to the dedication and hard work of our Philippine partners,” said U.S. Navy Cmdr. Robert Reyes, the officer in charge for the Philippines mission stop. “Their commitment to enhancing disaster resilience is truly inspiring. We are deeply grateful for their warm hospitality, collaborative spirit, and unwavering dedication to the safety and well-being of their community. The bonds forged here will undoubtedly strengthen our shared ability to respond effectively to future challenges.”
Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increase security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific.
For updates and multimedia from Pacific Partnership 2025, follow #PacificPartnership, #PP25, and #PacificPartnership25 on social media or visit: https://www.dvidshub.net/feature/PacificPartnership
Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
WASHINGTON — During a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hearing today entitled, “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for the Navy,” U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) pressed top military officials on Middle East operations and partisan budget maneuvers. The witnesses included Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan, Commandant of the Marine Corps General Eric M. Smith, and Acting Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James W. Kilby.
Addressing the current situation in the Middle East, Senator Schatz began, “President Trump’s decision to strike Iran was impetuous. He conducted strikes without seeking Congressional authorization, and it endangered service members stationed throughout the region. Iran’s barrage of missile attacks on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar demonstrated that. The announcement of a ceasefire is good news, but now we need an actual ceasefire, and it is on all parties to arrive at that conclusion this unnecessary 12-day conflict.”
Schatz then raised concerns about the readiness of U.S. forces amid shifting global threats, citing examples of multiple carrier strike groups rerouting from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East and stressing the importance of replacing munitions expended by the U.S. to defend Israel to ensure that the U.S. can continue to deter future threats and protect its partners.
Turning to the Navy and Marine Corps budget request, Schatz noted that the FY26 request, which Republicans have tied to their budget reconciliation efforts, fell $8 billion short of the FY25 continuing resolution (CR), saying, “Failing to address the current shortfalls caused by the CR means that the Navy will not be able to successfully deter the threats posed by China. Reconciliation is not a responsible way to do spending, as Senator McConnell, the Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee said, using extraordinary parliamentary authorities does not sustain the Department of Defense. The Department’s ability to take care of our service members should not be contingent on whether Congress passes an unrelated package of tax cuts and health care cuts.”
He urged Republicans to pursue bipartisan cooperation through the regular appropriations process, saying, “Historically, the things that go in a reconciliation package are the things that can’t pass on a bipartisan basis… The model in this modern Senate, which is, granted, different from the Senate of 10 years ago and 30 years ago and so on, but the model has been that you explore bipartisanship, you explore achieving cloture, and making this committee relevant and important and a sort of center of power in the Article One branch, and if you fail, then you have these extraordinary authorities to go elsewhere. But to go elsewhere before you even try to cut a deal with Democrats, who are saying, ‘We’d like to cut a deal’ may not be the wisest course of action.”
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 25, 2025.
Bats get fat to survive hard times. But climate change is threatening their survival strategy Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Wu, Lecturer in Wildlife Ecology, Murdoch University Rudmer Zwerver/Shutterstock Bats are often cast as the unseen night-time stewards of nature, flitting through the dark to control pest insects, pollinate plants and disperse seeds. But behind their silent contributions lies a remarkable and underappreciated survival strategy: seasonal
Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state. After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague,
Why have athletes stopped ‘taking a knee’? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ciprian N. Radavoi, Associate Professor in Law, University of Southern Queensland Eli Harold, Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid of the San Francisco 49ers kneel ahead of a game in 2016. Michael Zagaris/San Francisco 49ers/Getty Images It’s almost a decade since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started
Nearly half of Kiwis oppose automatic citizenship for Cook Islands, says poll By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist A new poll by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union shows that almost half of respondents oppose the Cook Islands having automatic New Zealand citizenship. Thirty percent of the 1000-person sample supported Cook Islanders retaining citizenship, 46 percent were opposed and 24 percent were unsure. The question asked: The Cook
Melanesian Spearhead Group leaders discuss Middle East conflict before ceasefire RNZ Pacific Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says the Middle East conflict was one of the discussions of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) in Suva this week — and Pacific leaders “took note of what is happening”. The Post-Courier reports Marape saying the “12 Day War” between Israel and Iran was based on
The ancients also had to deal with a cost-of-living crisis. Here’s how they managed Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia Louis Le Brun, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY Talk to anyone today, and they will probably have something to say about how expensive life has become. While the rate of inflation has
Video games can help trans players feel seen and safe. It all starts with design Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe Toups Dugas, Associate Professor of Human-Centred Computing, Monash University Shano Liang There is a comfort in finding and being yourself. Video games offer opportunities for this comfort. They allow people to exist in safe spaces, to develop community, and to explore the self – as well
How old are you really? Are the latest ‘biological age’ tests all they’re cracked up to be? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University We all like to imagine we’re ageing well. Now a simple blood or saliva test promises to tell us by measuring our “biological age”. And then, as many have done, we can share how “young” we really are on social
Global rankings fuel hype, but students have more to consider when choosing a uni Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Message, Professor of Public Humanities and Director of the ANU Humanities Research Centre, Australian National University At this time of year, many year 12 students are seriously turning their minds to the future. Should they go to university next year? If so, which one? June is
Playful or harmful? David Seymour’s posts raise questions about what’s OK to say online Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Veale, Senior Lecturer in Media Studies, part of the Digital Cultures Laboratory in the School of Humanities, Media, and Creative Communication, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party leader David Seymour says he is being “playful” and
Shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien accepts invitation to government’s economic roundtable Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The federal opposition has accepted an invitation from Treasurer Jim Chalmers for shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien to attend the August economic roundtable. The acceptance contrasts with the position taken by former opposition leader Peter Dutton last term. He refused to
Fiji advocacy group slams Indonesian role in MSG as a ‘disgrace’ Asia Pacific Report A Fiji-based advocacy group has condemned the participation of Indonesia in the Melanesian Spearhead Group which is meeting in Suva this week, saying it is a “profound disgrace” that the Indonesian Embassy continues to “operate freely” within the the MSG Secretariat. “This presence blatantly undermines the core principles of justice and solidarity
Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University Amir Levy/Getty Images After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump has announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades. Israel
Ramzy Baroud: The fallout – winners and losers from the Israeli war on Iran COMMENTARY: By Ramzy Baroud, editor of The Palestinian Chronicle The conflict between Israel and Iran over the past 12 days has redefined the regional chessboard. Here is a look at their key takeaways: Israel:Pulled in the US: Israel successfully drew the United States into a direct military confrontation with Iran, setting a significant precedent for
Iran and Israel agree to a fragile ceasefire. One factor could be crucial to it sticking Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University Amir Levy/Getty Images After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump has announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades. Israel
eSafety boss wants YouTube included in the social media ban. But AI raises even more concerns for kids Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tama Leaver, Professor of Internet Studies, Curtin University Irina WS/Shutterstock Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, today addressed the National Press Club to outline how her office will be driving the Social Media Minimum Age Bill when it comes into effect in December this year. The bill,
Trouble getting out of bed? Signs the ‘winter blues’ may be something more serious Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelvin (Shiu Fung) Wong, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology Justin Paget/Getty Winter is here. As the days grow shorter and the skies turn darker, you might start to feel a bit “off”. You may notice a dip in your mood or energy levels.
The war won’t end Iran’s nuclear program – it will drive it underground, following North Korea’s model Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Burke, Professor of Environmental Politics & International Relations, UNSW Sydney The United States’ and Israel’s strikes on Iran are concerning, and not just for the questionable legal justifications provided by both governments. Even if their attacks cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities, this will only
Iran’s internet blackout left people in the dark. How does a country shut down the internet? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mohiuddin Ahmed, Senior Lecturer of Computing and Security, Edith Cowan University Dylan Carr/Unsplash In recent days, Iranians experienced a near-complete internet blackout, with local service providers – including mobile services – repeatedly going offline. Iran’s government has cited cyber security concerns for ordering the shutdown. Shutting off
Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) yesterday delivered a speech on the Senate floor regarding the recent Israel-Iran conflict, before President Trump announced a ceasefire. During his remarks, Senator Graham gave an overview of the conflict, highlighted the Iranian Regime’s radical religious beliefs, and underscored the importance of stopping the ayatollah from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Graham also reiterated his unwavering support for the State of Israel and praised President Trump for the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
On Operation Midnight Hammer:
GRAHAM: “God bless President Donald J. Trump! I am so glad he won. What has he tried to do? Make peace, not war. He gave the ayatollah sixty days to find a peaceful settlement regarding their nuclear enrichment program… Sixty-one days go by and the rest is history.”https://youtu.be/6mWtHKhRszs?si=9FnIyGcFppQ7DgyH&t=886
GRAHAM:“Operation Midnight Hammer [was conducted] after day sixty. All the negotiations went nowhere, because the Iranians didn’t want them to go anywhere. President Trump acted, and it was brilliant, it was bold, and it will live in history.”https://youtu.be/6mWtHKhRszs?si=0CfR0cMMbHX2Xluo&t=990
On the motivations behind the Iranian Regime’s sponsorship of terrorism:
GRAHAM: “It’s all about religion. A fanatical strain of Shi’ism is now in charge of Iran, and they have three goals: …To purify Islam in the image of the ayatollah, to destroy the Jewish state, [and] to drive us out of the Middle East because we’re infidels. This is not a democracy, it’s a theocracy.”https://youtu.be/6mWtHKhRszs?si=F_BV1lb6ne5MDg_9&t=27
GRAHAM: “Why do they do what they do? Religious, fanatical beliefs. [They want] a master religion for the world. If you don’t believe that, you have missed a lot. The only way they’re not going to get there is for somebody to stop them.”https://youtu.be/6mWtHKhRszs?si=lUmASnj-In4s7xfm&t=1498
GRAHAM: “Let me tell you what [the Iranian regime is] up to. They’re up to enacting a religious agenda that has no place for anybody but them. If you’re a Christian, they want to destroy your faith. If you’re Jewish, they want to wipe you off the planet. And if you’re a Muslim, and you don’t agree with them, which most don’t, they want to take over the entire faith and make you bend the knee to their view. These people are religious fanatics. … Do you want any of these people [running the regime] to have a nuclear weapon? I don’t.”https://youtu.be/6mWtHKhRszs?si=agMwQomzy1yXhfup&t=416
On Iran’s threats and acts of violence toward America:
GRAHAM: “During the swearing in of the [new] Iranian president, the crowd started chanting, ‘Death to America, Death to America.’ [This happened] not long ago, July 30, 2024.”https://youtu.be/6mWtHKhRszs?si=pu2a2sS1TSEw9dNa&t=398
GRAHAM: “If you think this is not our conflict, you’ve missed a lot. You’ve been asleep at the switch since 1979… [The Iranian regime has] attacked Americans. They have American blood on their hands. They’re trying to build a nuclear bomb, and one of the targets is us.”https://youtu.be/6mWtHKhRszs?si=kFU_-nj4ToShoYZ0&t=487
On Graham’s hopes for the future of the Middle East:
GRAHAM: “Here’s my goal: to have people in charge of Iran who don’t want a nuclear weapon [or] to destroy Israel, who will not be the largest state sponsor of terrorism, but live in peace with their neighbors, and have a good relationship with the United States.”https://youtu.be/6mWtHKhRszs?si=iiloDfp0waZMFofB&t=1119
It’s almost a decade since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started a worldwide trend and sparked fierce debate when he knelt during the US national anthem.
In 2016, Kaepernick refused to follow the pre-game protocol related to the national anthem and knelt instead, saying:
I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour.
Soon, many athletes and teams began “taking a knee” at sports events to express their solidarity with victims of racial injustice.
Following the intense public debate over the appropriateness of Kaepernick’s act, the ritual quickly spread worldwide, with athletes in major soccer leagues, cricket, rugby, Formula 1, top-tier tennis and the US’s Major League Baseball and National Basketball Association taking a knee.
Athletes didn’t always kneel during national anthems, with the majority kneeling at certain points pre-game.
Despite the occasional “defection” of a small number of players who would stand while their teammates knelt – such as Israel Folau in rugby league, Wilfried Zaha in soccer and Quinton de Kock in cricket – the ritual was widely embraced by teams and athletes and helped raise awareness of the issue.
Even major sports organisations notorious for prohibiting any type of political activism generally accepted the kneeling ritual. For example, soccer’s International Football Federation (FIFA) showcased kneeling as a “stand against discrimination” and as human rights advocacy.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) initially stood firm by its Rule 50, which states “no kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.
But just three weeks before the 2021 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo, the IOC relaxed its interpretation, and athletes were permitted to express their views in ways that included taking a knee.
A surprising turn of events
Despite permission and even encouragement from sports governing bodies, our research shows the practice is disappearing from major sports competitions.
Take soccer, for example. At the FIFA World Cup 2022, England and Wales were the only national teams that knelt at their games in Qatar.
At the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 in Australia and New Zealand, no teams or players knelt.
The same happened at the 2024 Olympic soccer tournament in Paris.
That only a handful of teams knelt in Tokyo at the 2021 Olympics, two at the FIFA Mens’ World Cup in Qatar in 2022, none at the FIFA Womens’ World Cup in Australia and New Zealand in 2023, and again none at the Paris 2024 Olympics indicates a growing reluctance throughout the sports world.
This surely cannot mean athletes have become indifferent to racial injustice or other forms of oppression in the interval between the late 2010s and the mid-2020s.
The explanation must be sought elsewhere. A hint was provided when Crystal Palace soccer player Zaha, the first player of colour in the UK who refused to kneel, explained:
I feel like taking the knee is degrading, because growing up my parents just let me know that I should be proud to be Black no matter what and I feel like we should just stand tall.
The explanation may therefore be, at least in part, the players’ uncomfortable feelings related to the kneeling posture.
In sociology, this bothersome state of mind is called “cognitive dissonance”: the mental conflict a person experiences in the presence of contrasting beliefs.
A history of kneeling
The body posture of kneeling is not deemed, in any culture, as expressing solidarity.
Ancient Greek and the Roman societies, on whose values Western civilisation was built, rejected kneeling as improper, even when praying to gods.
When performed outside the church, kneeling meant submission to nobility or royalty.
The significance of kneeling as humility is not limited to the Western world.
In African tribal culture, the young kneel in front of elders, and everyone kneels before the king.
In China in 1949, Chairman Mao famously proclaimed at the first plenary of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference:
From now on our nation […] will no longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up.
With this in mind, kneeling may be deemed unfit at sporting events, which often feature a powerful cocktail of emotions, values and social expectations.
The inconsistency between the excitement of competition and the expectation to kneel — a gesture associated with submission and humility — likely creates a bothersome state of mind for athletes.
This potentially motivates some players to reject one of the two – in this case, the kneeling – to restore cognitive harmony.
What could replace the kneeling ritual?
After refusing, by unanimous players’ vote, to take a knee before their October 2020 game against the All Blacks, the Australian rugby union team chose instead to wear a First Nations jersey.
The same year, several teams in German soccer’s top league chose to show their support for Black Lives Matter by wearing distinctive armbands.
So it appears wearing a distinctive jersey or at least an armband is more easily accepted by modern-day athletes. This may be challenging given the governing bodies of many sports, such as FIFA, ban athletes from wearing political symbols on their clothing.
Depending on whether sports code accept this type of activism in the future, wearing suportive clothing could replace taking a knee as symbolic communication of solidarity with oppressed minorities.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.
After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.
He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.
The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).
Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.
However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.
Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements
Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.
Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.
Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.
Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)
Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.
Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.
Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.
Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance
In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.
Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.
“If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.
Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.
But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.
Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.
Ishiba under domestic political pressure
There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.
After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.
Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.
On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.
The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.
Craig Mark does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, June 24 — Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday that China supports Iran’s efforts to safeguard national sovereignty and security, and on that basis, achieve a genuine ceasefire, restore normal life for the people, and help de-escalate the situation in the Middle East as soon as possible.
During his phone call with Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, said China is willing to promote the UN Security Council in fulfilling its due role and primary responsibility of safeguarding international peace and security.
China also hopes that Iran will continue to ensure the safety of Chinese institutions, personnel, and diplomatic missions, he said.
Araghchi, for his part, stressed that the dangerous actions by Israel and the United States in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities are serious violations of international law, leaving Iran with no choice but to respond.
Genuine negotiations can only begin once Israel halts its aggression, he said.
Iran is willing to maintain close communication with China and looks forward to China’s greater role in easing tensions, he added.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, June 24 — Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday that China opposes settling disputes by force and has always stood on the side of peace.
Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, made the remarks during a phone conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.
Wang said Israel and the United States have used force against Iran on the grounds of “potential future threats,” which has seriously violated the international law and infringed upon Iran’s sovereignty.
Dialogue and negotiation is the fundamental way out, Wang said, noting that all parties should restart dialogue on an equal basis and push the Iranian nuclear issue back onto the track of political settlement.
Wang said that the Palestinian question is at the heart of the Middle East issue, and it is necessary to promote the implementation of the two-state solution.
For his part, Fidan said if Israel wants to safeguard its security, it should accept the two-state solution and stop the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.
Türkiye is willing to enhance communication and coordination with China and jointly commit to achieving peace and stability in the Middle East region, he said.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
A missile trace is seen from the city of Hebron in the southern West Bank, on June 24, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
Israel said on Tuesday it had identified missiles from Iran, shortly after the Israeli authorities said it had accepted a ceasefire proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump.
According to local media reports, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz instructed Israeli military to “respond forcefully” after Iranian missile fire.
The latest escalation came shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel had accepted a ceasefire proposed by Trump and had achieved its war goals against Iran.
According to a statement by the office of Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu declared that Israel had achieved its goal of removing Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threat.
Iran’s Press TV said earlier Tuesday that ceasefire begins following waves of Iranian attacks on Israel.
Trump had earlier announced that a ceasefire between the two sides would begin around 0400 GMT, with Iran expected to halt its operations first.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said earlier that there was no “agreement” on a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. However, he suggested Iran would be prepared to halt further retaliation if Israeli attacks stopped by 4 a.m. Tehran time (0030 GMT).
“If Israel stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 a.m., Iran has no intention of continuing its response afterwards,” Araqchi wrote in a post on X, adding that “the final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later.”
Hours earlier, a senior Iranian official told CNN that Tehran had not received any formal ceasefire proposal from the United States and saw no reason to halt hostilities.
“At this very moment, the enemy is committing aggression against Iran, and Iran is on the verge of intensifying its retaliatory strikes, with no ear to listen to the lies of its enemies,” the official was quoted as saying. He added that remarks from U.S. and Israeli leaders would be seen as a “deception” intended to justify further attacks on Iran.
The conflicting narratives raised questions about the implementation and durability of any potential ceasefire. It remained unclear whether the reported deal had been communicated through diplomatic channels, or whether either side intended to follow the terms.
Trump announced Monday evening that Israel and Iran have reached a formal agreement to implement a complete and total ceasefire, marking what he called the end of the “12-Day War.”
In a post on his Truth Social platform Monday, Trump said the ceasefire will initially last 12 hours, during which the opposing sides will maintain a posture of “peace and respect.”
“On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will,” Trump wrote, “I would like to congratulate both countries … on having the stamina, courage, and intelligence to end what should be called ‘THE 12 DAY WAR.’”
Calling the agreement a breakthrough that “could have saved the Middle East from years of destruction,” Trump ended his announcement with a sweeping message of unity: “God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!”
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
U.S. stocks surged Tuesday as investors welcomed the news of a ceasefire agreement that could bring an end to the Middle East conflict which has unsettled markets in recent weeks.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 507.24 points, or 1.19 percent, to 43,089.02. The S&P 500 added 67.01 points, or 1.11 percent, to 6,092.18. The Nasdaq Composite Index increased by 281.56 points, or 1.43 percent, to 19,912.53.
Nine of the 11 primary S&P 500 sectors ended in green, with technology and financials leading the gainers by adding 1.61 percent and 1.50 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, energy and consumer staples led the laggards by losing 1.51 percent and 0.03 percent, respectively.
U.S. President Donald Trump, who first announced the Iran-Israel ceasefire late Monday, said Tuesday morning that both countries had violated the deal overnight, but he emphasized that the agreement remained in effect. The fragile truce helped ease investor anxiety over a potential escalation, fueling a broad rally across sectors.
“The key event for the market was how quick and limited the U.S. involvement was, as well as the ‘weak’ response from Iran which was essentially a choreographed fireworks display for domestic consumption,” said Jon Brager, portfolio manager at Palmer Square Capital Management. “So even if the ceasefire results in occasional flare-ups, the market has decided this risk is now in the rearview mirror and the focus probably returns to tariffs and fiscal policy.”
Markets also drew support from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s testimony to Congress. Powell said the Fed could cut interest rates “sooner rather than later,” even as he stressed the need to monitor the effects of tariff-driven inflation. The dovish tone reinforced investor expectations that the central bank remains flexible in its response to evolving economic conditions.
Meanwhile, the U.S. consumer confidence index dropped by 5.4 points in June to 93.0, down from 98.4 in May, according to The Conference Board. The decline reflects increased consumer unease about current business conditions and the short-term outlook, as optimism about future income, job prospects, and business activity all declined. Despite the weakening sentiment, markets shrugged off the data as geopolitical relief and the prospect of rate cuts took precedence.
Mega-cap technology stocks extended gains from Monday. Broadcom rose 3.94 percent, while Nvidia added 2.59 percent. Amazon climbed 2.06 percent, and Alphabet and Meta Platforms each rose more than 1 percent. Microsoft gained 0.85 percent, and Apple edged lower. Still, Tesla slipped 2.35 percent, giving back part of Monday’s sharp rally after the company launched its driverless robotaxi service in Austin.
Today, EU Foreign Policy Chief, Kaja Kallas, presented a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement at the meeting of EU Foreign Affairs Ministers. In response, Agnes Bertrand Sanz, Oxfam Humanitarian Expert, said:
“There are moments in history where delay and distraction are not neutral, it is a decision. While EU ministers continue to debate and defer, entire families in Gaza are being buried under rubble and people are being killed while trying to get food.
“The EU and EU countries cannot keep on playing political ping pong or risk losing sight of the crisis in Gaza. Talking is easy. Acting is harder. And every second of delay costs lives.”
EU foreign affairs ministers met today for theForeign Affairs Council. At the meeting, EU Foreign Affairs Chief, Kaja Kallas, presented a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement to European Foreign Affairs Ministers.
Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement states “Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.” Israel’s well-documented violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, particularly in Gaza and the West Bank, violate Article 2.
Beyond suspending this agreement, Oxfam is calling for a permanent ceasefire, safe and unhindered humanitarian aid,an end to illegal Israeli occupationand a halt in all arm sales and transfers to Israel while there is a risk they are used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law.
For more information on our work and to see our latest press releases, please visit oxfam.org/eu. For updates, follow us on Twitter, BlueSky and LinkedIn.
Source: United States Senator for Mississippi Roger Wicker
Watch Video Here
WASHINGTON –U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today led a hearing to consider the nominations of two senior military officers to lead U.S. Central Command, and U.S. European Command.
In his opening remarks, Chairman Wickerpraised our service members for their skill and proficiency in carrying out the Operation Midnight Hammer mission to degrade Iran’s nuclear weapon capability.The Chairman also emphasized the consequential threat environments in the CENTCOM and EUCOM theaters of operations and stressed the importance of alliances in achieving peace through strength.
Read Senator Wicker’s hearing opening statement as delivered.
The committee meets today to consider the nominations of Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, to be Commander, United States Central Command, and Lieutenant General Alexus G. Grynkewich, to be Commander, United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. I welcome our nominees and their families, and I thank them for their continued willingness to serve our nation.
I want to begin my remarks by recognizing the remarkable skill, courage, and professionalism displayed by the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who participated in Operation Midnight Hammer over the weekend.
President Trump was right to authorize the mission to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities and address this longstanding threat to the United States. Our commander-in-chief gave Ayatollah Khamenei every chance to negotiate peacefully. The Iranian leader, however, rejected our President’s entreaties. He instead chose to continue his pursuit of a nuclear weapon and support of terrorism rather than a peaceful resolution that would have benefited the Iranian people. To be clear, the situation the Iranian regime finds itself in today is entirely of its own making.
I know members of this committee will have questions about Operation Midnight Hammer and the administration’s Iran policy. I do remind my colleagues there will be a classified briefing for all senators later today with senior administration officials to address many of these questions.
If confirmed, Admiral Cooper will assume command of CENTCOM in the midst of a seismic shift across the Middle East. These changes were precipitated by Hamas’ barbaric attack against Israel on October 7th, 2023. Since then, Iran’s conventional military capabilities have been severely degraded, Hezbollah’s leadership has been decimated, and Hamas has been crushed. Iran’s longtime political ally in the region – Syria’s Bashar Assad – is out of power and in exile.
Iran and its terrorist allies are weaker than they have been in decades, but the job is not done.
We must do all we can to support the defense of Israel and ensure that American forces in the region have what they need. I hope to hear Admiral Cooper’s unclassified assessment of recent developments and his description of the force posture and force protection requirements CENTCOM needs in order to contend with Iran, its proxies, and other threats emanating from the region.
Lastly, we must not lose sight of the continuing threat posed by radical Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Although weakened, ISIS and al-Qaeda remain intent on killing Americans. I am interested in Admiral Cooper’s testimony about the current capabilities of terrorist groups in the region and what CENTCOM’s counterterrorism strategy should be in order to counter this threat.
Now as to General Grynkewich — If confirmed, he will take command of EUCOM and NATO at a time of war and great uncertainty. Vladimir Putin continues to remind the West that Russia remains a determined enemy, one which is willing to use force to vindicate long-held grievances and to violate international law. The Russian dictator’s invasion of Ukraine has rained death and destruction upon a democratic people and serves as a warning to the world that the military threat from Russia is as relevant today as it ever has been.
Indeed, earlier this month, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned that “Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years.” He added that Putin’s war economy “produces more munitions in three months than the whole of NATO produces in a year.” Of course, Russia is not just a danger to our NATO allies. Russia also directly threatens the homeland. Its nuclear arsenal is sized and postured to destroy the United States. The members of this committee are keen to hear General Grynkewich’s views of the threat Russia poses, as well as his plans to counter it.
The United States faces a dauting challenge: We must deter, and if necessary, defeat two nuclear peer adversaries. That task highlights the important role allies play in our security. President Trump deserves considerable credit for dramatically increasing allied burden sharing, which has helped to renew NATO’s purpose. NATO is now actively debating a commitment for members to spend 5 percent of their GDP on defense.
Amid this encouraging development, there are some in the Pentagon that believe the U.S. must draw down our military presence in Europe. This thinking bewilders most of us on this committee, given Russia’s aggression and the renewed willingness of allies to share our collective defense burden.
Our presence in Europe helps deter Russia. It also has additional benefits, including enabling and assisting our military operations in the CENTCOM and AFRICOM areas of operation. That support is vital, especially now, as tensions once again rise in the Middle East.
With that I look forward to our hearing today, and I turn to my colleague and friend, Ranking Member Reed.
Source: United States Senator for Mississippi Roger Wicker
Watch Video Here
WASHINGTON –U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today led a hearing to consider the nominations of two senior military officers to lead U.S. Central Command, and U.S. European Command.
In his opening remarks, Chairman Wickerpraised our service members for their skill and proficiency in carrying out the Operation Midnight Hammer mission to degrade Iran’s nuclear weapon capability.The Chairman also emphasized the consequential threat environments in the CENTCOM and EUCOM theaters of operations and stressed the importance of alliances in achieving peace through strength.
Read Senator Wicker’s hearing opening statement as delivered.
The committee meets today to consider the nominations of Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, to be Commander, United States Central Command, and Lieutenant General Alexus G. Grynkewich, to be Commander, United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. I welcome our nominees and their families, and I thank them for their continued willingness to serve our nation.
I want to begin my remarks by recognizing the remarkable skill, courage, and professionalism displayed by the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who participated in Operation Midnight Hammer over the weekend.
President Trump was right to authorize the mission to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities and address this longstanding threat to the United States. Our commander-in-chief gave Ayatollah Khamenei every chance to negotiate peacefully. The Iranian leader, however, rejected our President’s entreaties. He instead chose to continue his pursuit of a nuclear weapon and support of terrorism rather than a peaceful resolution that would have benefited the Iranian people. To be clear, the situation the Iranian regime finds itself in today is entirely of its own making.
I know members of this committee will have questions about Operation Midnight Hammer and the administration’s Iran policy. I do remind my colleagues there will be a classified briefing for all senators later today with senior administration officials to address many of these questions.
If confirmed, Admiral Cooper will assume command of CENTCOM in the midst of a seismic shift across the Middle East. These changes were precipitated by Hamas’ barbaric attack against Israel on October 7th, 2023. Since then, Iran’s conventional military capabilities have been severely degraded, Hezbollah’s leadership has been decimated, and Hamas has been crushed. Iran’s longtime political ally in the region – Syria’s Bashar Assad – is out of power and in exile.
Iran and its terrorist allies are weaker than they have been in decades, but the job is not done.
We must do all we can to support the defense of Israel and ensure that American forces in the region have what they need. I hope to hear Admiral Cooper’s unclassified assessment of recent developments and his description of the force posture and force protection requirements CENTCOM needs in order to contend with Iran, its proxies, and other threats emanating from the region.
Lastly, we must not lose sight of the continuing threat posed by radical Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Although weakened, ISIS and al-Qaeda remain intent on killing Americans. I am interested in Admiral Cooper’s testimony about the current capabilities of terrorist groups in the region and what CENTCOM’s counterterrorism strategy should be in order to counter this threat.
Now as to General Grynkewich — If confirmed, he will take command of EUCOM and NATO at a time of war and great uncertainty. Vladimir Putin continues to remind the West that Russia remains a determined enemy, one which is willing to use force to vindicate long-held grievances and to violate international law. The Russian dictator’s invasion of Ukraine has rained death and destruction upon a democratic people and serves as a warning to the world that the military threat from Russia is as relevant today as it ever has been.
Indeed, earlier this month, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned that “Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years.” He added that Putin’s war economy “produces more munitions in three months than the whole of NATO produces in a year.” Of course, Russia is not just a danger to our NATO allies. Russia also directly threatens the homeland. Its nuclear arsenal is sized and postured to destroy the United States. The members of this committee are keen to hear General Grynkewich’s views of the threat Russia poses, as well as his plans to counter it.
The United States faces a dauting challenge: We must deter, and if necessary, defeat two nuclear peer adversaries. That task highlights the important role allies play in our security. President Trump deserves considerable credit for dramatically increasing allied burden sharing, which has helped to renew NATO’s purpose. NATO is now actively debating a commitment for members to spend 5 percent of their GDP on defense.
Amid this encouraging development, there are some in the Pentagon that believe the U.S. must draw down our military presence in Europe. This thinking bewilders most of us on this committee, given Russia’s aggression and the renewed willingness of allies to share our collective defense burden.
Our presence in Europe helps deter Russia. It also has additional benefits, including enabling and assisting our military operations in the CENTCOM and AFRICOM areas of operation. That support is vital, especially now, as tensions once again rise in the Middle East.
With that I look forward to our hearing today, and I turn to my colleague and friend, Ranking Member Reed.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Spokesman of Syrian interior authorities Noureddin al-Baba (Rear) speaks at a press conference in Damascus, Syria, on June 24, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
The Islamic State (IS) group and remnants of other extremist factions remain the biggest security challenge to Syria, spokesman of Syrian interior authorities Noureddin al-Baba said Tuesday, following the arrest of suspects linked to a deadly suicide bombing at Mar Elias Church in Damascus.
At a press conference in the capital Damascus, al-Baba stressed that IS poses a cross-border threat that endangers multiple countries, not just Syria.
Syria’s interior authorities announced Monday that they had dismantled the IS-affiliated cell responsible for Sunday’s suicide bombing at the church in the Dweilaa neighborhood, which killed at least 25 people and wounded more than 60. The attack marked the deadliest of its kind in the Syrian capital in years.
According to al-Baba, a series of raids in rural Damascus following the suicide bombing resulted in the arrest of the entire cell, as well as the seizure of explosives and weapons. Al-Baba confirmed that the group operated independently of any local religious authorities.
Al-Baba said that the interrogation of a captured militant led authorities to the locations of all the cell’s hideouts. He identified the ringleader as Mohammad Abdel-Ilah al-Jumaili, also known as Abu Imad al-Jumaili, a Syrian national from the al-Hajar al-Aswad area of Damascus and a former Islamic State figure known as the “desert governor.”
The two attackers behind the Church bombing, including one who detonated his explosive vest inside Mar Elias Church and another who was captured en route to the Sayyida Zainab Shiite shrine in the Damascus countryside, were foreign nationals who had entered Syria through the desert after escaping from the al-Hol camp.
The spokesman said IS recruited them as part of a broader effort to exploit security gaps following recent transitions in Syria’s governance.
“The misguided youth who had been in al-Hol camp are being recruited by IS under the banner of revenge or retribution,” al-Baba warned.
While describing the recent arrests as a “crushing blow” to IS in the capital and surrounding areas, he pledged that Syria will continue working with neighboring countries to confront the “transnational terrorist threat.”
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Israel lifted nationwide emergency restrictions on Tuesday evening, signaling a cautious return to normalcy after a fragile ceasefire with Iran took hold, ending nearly two weeks of intense cross-border attacks.
The decision came as Israeli officials assessed the aftermath of the 12-day war, which left dozens dead and over 1,000 wounded, while military leaders warned that despite a pause in fighting, the broader campaign against Iran and its allies was far from over.
Israel’s Home Front Command announced in a statement that the cancellation of the restrictions, which took effect at 8 p.m. local time (1700 GMT), allows all regions of the country to resume full civilian activity, including the reopening of schools, workplaces, and public gatherings. Communities adjacent to the Gaza Strip will remain under guidelines allowing gatherings of up to 2,000 people.
The easing of restrictions marks a tentative sign that the truce is holding after a shaky start, during which both countries accused each other of violating the terms by continuing to launch strikes. An Israeli surprise attack targeting military sites and nuclear scientists across Iran on June 12 sparked the war.
Police said Tuesday that Iranian missile barrages had struck 52 locations across Israel during nearly two weeks of fighting. Eight of the attacks caused fatalities, killing one soldier and 27 civilians. Magen David Adom, Israel’s national rescue service, said 1,319 people were injured, including 17 seriously, 29 moderately, and 872 lightly. An additional 401 people were treated for anxiety.
Israel’s Airports Authority said that Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv and a smaller airport in the northern city of Haifa had resumed full operations after periods of partial or total shutdown during the hostilities.
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir held a situational assessment with senior officers on Tuesday and warned that the conflict with Iran is far from over. “We have concluded a significant phase, but the campaign against Iran is not over,” he said. “We are entering a new phase based on the achievements of the previous one.”
He said that Israeli strikes on nuclear-related facilities and missile stockpiles “set Iran’s nuclear project back by years,” but stopped short of claiming the program had been dismantled, a key goal stated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“The focus now shifts back to Gaza — to bring the hostages home and to dismantle the Hamas regime,” Zamir added.
According to Gaza’s health authorities, 56,077 Palestinians have been killed and 131,848 wounded in Gaza during the 20-month-long conflict.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
The UN Security Council holds a meeting on non-proliferation at the UN headquarters in New York, on June 24, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
UN Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo on Tuesday called for diplomacy and dialogue to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
In a briefing to the Security Council on the implementation of its Resolution 2231, which endorses the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the six world powers of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, DiCarlo regretted that with less than four months left until the termination of its provisions, the objectives of the resolution and those of the Iran nuclear deal have yet to be fully realized.
Resolution 2231 expires on Oct. 18, 2025.
The nuclear deal, adopted in the summer of 2015 to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program would be exclusively peaceful, has faced many challenges since its inception, including the withdrawal of the United States from the agreement in 2018 during Donald Trump’s first term of office as U.S. president, said DiCarlo.
Over the last few months, participants of the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), increased their efforts to identify a way forward for full implementation of the plan. In addition, Iran and the United States engaged in five rounds of bilateral talks, facilitated by Oman, said DiCarlo. “Regrettably, neither of these initiatives produced a way forward to ensuring the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”
The military escalation between Israel and Iran since June 13 and U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities on Saturday (New York time) complicated prospects for achieving full implementation of Resolution 2231. Iran’s strikes on Monday on a U.S. military base in Qatar further exacerbated insecurity in an already tense region, she said.
Monday’s announcement by the United States, in coordination with Qatar, of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran is a significant achievement that potentially pulls Iran, Israel and the region back from the brink, she said.
At the heart of this conflict is the nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Following the deadly clashes of the past 12 days, the ceasefire agreement is an opportunity to avoid a catastrophic escalation and achieve a peaceful resolution of the Iran nuclear issue, she said. “Diplomacy, dialogue and verification remain the best option to ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program and to bring about concrete economic benefits to the people of Iran.”
The United Nations stands ready to support all efforts that advance peace, dialogue and stability in the region, she said.
Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says the Middle East conflict was one of the discussions of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) in Suva this week — and Pacific leaders “took note of what is happening”.
The Post-Courier reports Marape saying the “12 Day War” between Israel and Iran was based on high technology and using missiles sent from great distances.
“In the context of MSG, the leaders want peace always. And the Pacific remains friends to all, enemies to none,” he said.
He said an effect on PNG would be the inflation in prices of oil and gas.
Yesterday morning, US President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire had been agreed between Israel and Iran, and so far it has been holding in spite of tensions.
Australia had stepped in to help Papua New Guinea diplomats and citizens caught in the Middle East.
Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko confirmed last week that a group was to be evacuated through Jordan.
There had been six diplomats in lockdown at the PNG embassy in Jerusalem awaiting extraction.
Meanwhile, a repatriation flight for Australians stuck in Israel had been cancelled.
ABC News reported that it was the second day repatriation plans were scrapped at the last minute because of rocket fire. A bus meant to take people across the border into Jordan was cancelled the previous day.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Recognized international leader in risk management, international affairs, and development policy will head EWC’s mission starting in July
HONOLULU (June 24, 2025) — The East-West Center Board of Governors is pleased to announce the selection of Celeste A. Connors as the institution’s next President, effective July 1. A Hawai‘i-raised leader with over 25 years of global experience in risk management, diplomacy, national security, and development policy, Ms. Connors brings a deep understanding of both international affairs and regional priorities to the role.
Her appointment concludes an extensive search to succeed outgoing Interim President James K. Scott, the former EWC Board chair who has been serving in the presidential post temporarily since the beginning of this year. The Board selected Connors following a robust process engaging a broad range of EWC stakeholders.
Experience across sectors
“Ms. Connors was selected from an impressive applicant pool of talented and experienced individuals,” said EWC Board of Governors Chairman John Waihe‘e. “We feel strongly that her breadth of leadership experience across government, civil society, academia, and business sectors is exactly what the Center requires to carry our mission and legacy forward to a bright new future at this pivotal time in our institution’s proud 65-year history.”
“I’m deeply honored and excited to lead the East-West Center team in continuing to advance regional cooperation,” said Connors. “Strategically based in the Pacific Ocean, the EWC plays a critical role in supporting US engagement in the Indo-Pacific region through convening, expert dialogue, educational exchange, and people-to-people connections. In Hawai‘i and beyond, we seek to support security and prosperity by promoting leadership and partnerships around our shared interests and values.”
“I am delighted with the Board’s selection,” said outgoing Interim President Scott, who will be returning to a fundraising position on the EWC Foundation board. “Celeste is already a close partner to the Center, as well as being one of our adjunct experts, and I know she will devote herself to East-West Center’s continued success with the same passion for our mission that inspires our dedicated staff and community. I look forward to working with her on a seamless transition.”
Insight and inspiration
“The role of leading the East-West Center demands a leader with profound insight into the complex interplay of global, regional, and national dynamics—particularly across Asia and the Pacific,” said Adm. Thomas Fargo (Ret.), former commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command and current Chairman of Hawaiian Electric Industries, where Connors is a board member. “Equally important is a deep appreciation for the diverse cultures, values, and relationships that shape this region. Celeste Connors brings to this position not only these essential qualities, but also a breadth of experience and vision that will serve the Center exceptionally well.”
“Celeste has been an energetic, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader who has put Hawai‘i Green Growth on the local, national, and international map. She is indeed leaving us very large shoes to fill,” added Hawai‘i Green Growth Board Chair Randy Moore, former head of the University of Hawai‘i Board of Regents and a noted educator and business executive. “On the other hand, we cannot think of a better candidate to lead the East-West Center. Celeste has developed strong contacts with leaders of Pacific Island nations, and together with her prior experience in the US Department of State and the White House, she is plugged into a network that will enable the Center to productively serve Hawaiʻi, the nation, and the world. We wish her every success.”
About Celeste Connors
Celeste A. Connors, who was raised in Hawai‘i, is a recognized international leader with more than 25 years of risk management and national security experience. As a former Director on both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council under both Republican and Democratic administrations, she chaired complex interagency processes and advised White House leaders on energy, trade, environment, and technology strategies. She previously gained extensive foreign policy experience while serving as a US diplomat in Saudi Arabia, Greece, Germany, and the US Mission to the United Nations, and as Foreign Policy Adviser to the Mayor of New York City.
In recent years, Connors has led the internationally recognized center of excellence Hawaii Green Growth, where she developed policy and investment solutions to help build resilient communities. She is also co-founder of c.dots development LLC, and the Co-Chair of the Local2030 Islands Network, a group of 45 island economies focused on building a safer, more resilient future.
Ms. Connors has an extensive background in corporate and nonprofit governance, including serving on the boards of Hawaiian Electric Industries, the state’s primary electricity provider, and the Hawai‘i Visitors and Convention Bureau. She also co-chairs the Hawai‘i Sustainability Business Forum, which brings together the CEOs of the state’s top public and private companies.
She has served in academia as well, as a faculty lecturer and practitioner with the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), where she led a practicum program focused on risk management. In addition, she has been an Adjunct Senior Fellow with the East-West Center since 2021, when Hawai‘i Green Growth entered a formal partnership with the Center to collaborate on sustainable development initiatives.
Ms. Connors holds a master’s degree in Development Studies from the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and an undergraduate degree in International Relations from Tufts University. Her husband Paul is a former diplomat and teacher, and they have a son and daughter in their teens.
The East-West Center promotes better relations and understanding among the people and nations of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific through cooperative study, research, and dialogue. Established by the US Congress in 1960, the Center serves as a resource for information and analysis on critical issues of common concern, bringing people together to exchange views, build expertise, and develop policy options.
Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
Watch Kennedy’s commentshere.
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor:
On reconciliation:
“We’re working hard on reconciliation. I suspect we’re going to have a bill before us here in a few days. It’s very important, it does a lot. . . . If we pass this bill, it will be the largest tax cut in the history of America. But the converse is also true. If we don’t pass this bill, it will be the largest tax increase on the American people in the history of America.
“So, there are two doors here. Door number one: Pass it. Largest tax cut in the history of America. Door number two: Don’t pass it. Largest tax increase—$4.3 trillion. That’s how much taxes will go up on ordinary Americans. Not just the rich. I know they’re going to tell you that. It’s just the rich. No, it’s not. It’s ordinary Americans. It’s every American.
“If we don’t pass this bill, you raise taxes $4.3 trillion on 300-plus million Americans, and you watch this economy go down like a fat guy on a seesaw. We don’t have a choice.”
On rescissions:
“The president has sent to us a rescission package. It’s $9.4 billion, as you know, Mr. President. The president is asking us to remove spending that Congress appropriated for areas in foreign aid and for public broadcasting. I want to talk about the foreign aid part.
“We’re going to have plenty of time to debate whether we ought to agree with the president, but I want the American people to understand the type of spending porn that the president is asking to take out of Congress’ budget.
“The Honorable Jodey Arrington, who is a congressman—a damned good one too—he’s chairman of the House Budget Committee. The congressman put together just a few items in the foreign aid spending provisions that the president is asking us to remove. This list is illustrative. It’s not exhaustive.
“I just wanted to point a couple of these programs out. Again, this is spending the president is asking us to revoke. You be the judge, folks. It’s your money. The American people can decide whether we ought to spend their money on this or take it out, as the president has requested.
“I know Congress is not blameless, believe me. But we didn’t approve these specific items of expenditure. We approved the amounts and the general subject areas, like foreign aid. The bureaucrats did the rest.
“I didn’t know there was any such thing as an environmentally unfriendly reproductive health decision. $167,000 the bureaucracy has spent or is proposing to spend on free education and health care to migrants in Ecuador and Venezuela. $67,000 to provide insect powder to children in Madagascar.
“Mr. President, have you ever had insect powder? Don’t answer that. I don’t think I’m even supposed to be asking you under the Senate rules. But I haven’t had it. . . . The bureaucracy wants to spend $5.1 million to strengthen the ‘resilience of LGBTQ global movements, and the president asked us to take it out. $833,000 for services for transgender people, sex workers, and their clients and sexual networks in Nepal. $643,000 for LGBTQIA programs in the western Balkans. $567,000 for LGBTQIA programs in Uganda. $33,000 for being LGBTQIA in the Caribbean.
“In the area of the climate, Mr. President, the bureaucrats want to spend—and President Trump wants us to take it out—$6 million appropriated for net-zero cities in Mexico, $2.1 million for climate resilience in Southeast Asia, Latin America and east Africa, $416,700 for climate adaptation, including growing coral reefs, in the Caribbean. $500,000 for Rwanda to buy electric buses. Your money. $8,000 to promote vegan food in Zambia. . . . The bureaucracy wants to spend $1 million on voter ID programs in Haiti. If you know anything about Haiti, it’s a mess. They’re not about to have elections any time soon. $889,000 for electoral reforms and voter education in Kenya.
“In the area of media arts and culture, the bureaucracy proposes to spend $6 million to support media organization and civic life in Palestine, and $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street.
“This is just a taste, Mr. President. This list is illustrative, it’s not exhaustive. So when you see us debating whether we should reduce the federal budget by $9.3 billion, which the House has already decided to do and now it’s our turn, and I say—which I have repeatedly said and will continue to say—is that all the president is asking us to do is cut the spending porn from the budget.
“You can make up your own mind. It’s your money. If you think we ought to be spending the money on this, encourage us to vote no, but if you think you could spend this money of yours better than the bureaucracy could or we could spend on our kids or our roads or our health care, then encourage us to vote yes.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)
Today, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries held a press conference with Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar where they demanded that the American people receive answers from the Trump administration on how they plan to avoid another deadly war in the Middle East.
LEADER JEFFRIES: Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The Trump administration undertook an offensive military strike in the Middle East and chose to ignore the constitutional requirement to get approval from the United States Congress. The American people deserve to know the facts and the truth, as it related to the decision to strike Iran without securing congressional approval. What was the imminent nature of the threat to the safety and security of the American people that justified the strike that took place?
What was the result of the military strike in terms of potentially setting back the Iranian nuclear program and their aspirations? We agree that Iran should never be permitted to become nuclear-capable. Iran is a sworn enemy of the United States of America and a sworn enemy of our allies, including Israel and Jordan. But there are real questions that need to be answered so that the American people have a full understanding of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Is it, in fact, the case that Iran’s nuclear program has been completely and totally obliterated?
There apparently are reasons to believe that that was a blatant misrepresentation made by Donald Trump to the American people. That’s one of the questions that needs to be answered by the Trump administration. What are they running away from? Why was this briefing, which is already days late, postponed? Why is the Trump administration playing political games on questions of war and peace that relate directly to the safety and security of the American people? We’re ready to undertake our constitutional responsibility on behalf of the American people on these serious issues, which include the need to get an answer to the question as to what is Donald Trump’s plan to avoid another costly and deadly war in the Middle East, which the American people want no part of, Democrats, independents and Republicans.
Source: United States Senator for Alabama Tommy Tuberville
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) participated in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to consider the nominations of Vice Admiral Charles B. Cooper II, to be Commander for United States Central Command, and Lieutenant General Alexus G. Grynkewich to be Commander for United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. During the hearing, Senator Tuberville and Lt. General Grynkewich discussed the general’s relationship with NATO commanders as well as the conflict in Eastern Europe. Additionally, he spoke to Vice Admiral Cooper about preventing the Houthis from obstructing trade in the Middle East.
Read Senator Tuberville’s remarks below or on YouTube or Rumble.
ON NATO RELATIONSHIPS:
TUBERVILLE: “Good morning. Thanks for both of your service and moving your families around. Kinda like a coach. You know, you don’t stay very long in one spot. Admiral, it’s good to see your family here. Auburn folks. Good Alabama folks. Living Montgomery, I think. Right? […]
“General, let me ask you this. What’s your relationship with the NATO commanders in the bigger countries? That we have.”
GRYNKEWICH: “Senator, I have worked with European partners around the world over the years in a variety of coalition environments, and I know many of the leaders across all of those countries. It’s a solid relationship, sir.”
TUBERVILLE: “How about Turkey?”
GRYNKEWICH: “Sir, I’ve had the privilege of visiting Türkiye several times over the course of my career and have great respect for the military capabilities that they can bring to bear.”
TUBERVILLE: “Largest military in NATO. Is that right?”
GRYNKEWICH: “Yes, sir.”
ON LIKELIHOOD OF UKRAINE DEFEATING RUSSIA:
TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. Let me ask this question. This Ukraine-Russia war has been going on for a long time. A lot of people killed. We’ve spent a lot of money. Can Ukraine win?”
GRYNKEWICH: “Senator, I think Ukraine can win. I think anytime your own homeland is threatened, you fight with a tenacity that’s difficult for us to conceive of if we haven’t found ourselves in that same situation.”
TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. They’ve they have absolutely fought hard. You gotta give it to them.”
ON WHO SUPPORTS HOUTHIS:
TUBERVILLE: “Admiral, we hadn’t talked about the Houthis. I think we’ve bombed them for 30 straight days. Is that correct?”
COOPER: “Sir, we bombed them for 51 straight days in conjunction with Operation Rough Rider.”
TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. Have we stopped?”
COOPER: “Sir, the president gave the military a very precise mission, which was to restore the freedom of navigation, and that mission was successfully executed. We have freedom of navigation today. We agreed [to] a ceasefire several weeks ago. Now 40 days ago. If the Houthis didn’t shoot at us, we wouldn’t shoot at them. They have not shot at us. We have not shot at them. And we have multiple examples of destroyers going back and forth through the Bab al-Mandab.”
TUBERVILLE: “Destroyers, but what about merchant ships?”
COOPER: “There is merchant ships flowing through the Bab al-Mandab today. If we walk back to the fall of 2023 when the Houthis started their kinetic actions, it took several months for the flow of commerce to leave the Red Sea. I would expect it’s gonna take several months for it to fully come back.”
TUBERVILLE: “My understanding is that the Houthis are one of the strongest groups that are backed by Iran. Is that correct?”
COOPER: “Sir, they’ve been supported with arms, people, training, ISR for the better part of 10 years. They’re well supported.”
TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. China support’s them too?”
COOPER: “They do.”
TUBERVILLE: “So, do you think this is going to be an on and off project with the Houthis over the years? Or are we going to be able to stabilize it?”
COOPER: “I think we’re now 40 days into this; the ball is in the Houthis’ court. We’re prepared for a range of actions, but I think the policies associated with the ceasefire remain in place, and we’ll just be prepared, from a military perspective, for a wide range of contingencies as is our obligation to do so.”
TUBERVILLE: “Do we actually know who the leadership is that controls the Houthis?”
COOPER: “We do, sir.”
TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. […] Do we talk to them? They talk back to us? How does that work?”
COOPER: “Communications with the Houthis is done through diplomatic channels. And Houthis are a foreign terrorist organization. We don’t have a communication via the military.”
TUBERVILLE: “So the president, when he works and tries to calm the situation down, who does he talk to?”
COOPER: “Sir, he uses the Envoy for the Middle East, Ambassador Steve Witkoff, who helped enable the most recent ceasefire.”
TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. They must be some tough rascals. I mean, we bombed them for 51 days and they’re still kicking. Right?”
COOPER: “They’re extremely well supplied by the Iranians.”
TUBERVILLE: “They’re supplied, but what? Are they dug in?”
COOPER: “As we’ve seen throughout the region, groups are going underground, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. This is a serious issue that we will have to look at into the future.”
TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. We do make a bomb in Huntsville called ‘MOAB.’ They do a lot of damage. I think we’ve seen that in Afghanistan. We got a few left. So, maybe in the future, [if] we can’t get them to reconcile…because we’re gonna have to have full passage in the Red Sea. If we’re going to get AI going, we’re going to get supply chains going, we can’t haphazardly wonder if they’re going to sink one of our ships but thank you. Good luck to both of you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”
Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Val Hoyle (OR-04) released the following statement after her vote on today’s motion to table impeachment:
“My position on the strikes in Iran has been clear. My constituents, regardless of party, do not want to send their children or their tax dollars to another forever war in the Middle East. That said, I voted to table the motion to impeach because there is no viable path to impeachment at this time. Impeachment is one of the most serious actions Congress can take, and it shouldn’t be used as a symbolic gesture or partisan spectacle.”
Background
Since coming to Congress in 2022, Rep. Hoyle has been an outspoken critic of presidential abuses of Congressional War Powers by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
In 2023, Rep. Hoyle voted against the House’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in part due to concerns about War Powers authorities. She offered amendments to:
Prohibit U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen unless authorized by Congress;
End unauthorized U.S. military involvement in Syria;
And to repeal the 1991, 2001, and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs), citing their misuse by presidents of both parties who use them to unilaterally engage in foreign wars.
In 2023, Rep. Hoyle spoke out against President Biden’s use of unauthorized military strikes.
In January 2024, Rep. Hoyle was among the first Democratic Congresspeople to speak out against President Biden’s unilateral decision to launch strikes in Yemen.
In April 2025, Rep. Hoyle joined Rep. Jayapal (D-WA) and Rep. Khanna (D-CA) to lead 30 of her colleagues in calling out President Trumps unilateral decision to launch strikes in Yemen.
In June 2025, Rep. Hoyle was one of 14 original cosponsors of Rep. Khanna’s (D-CA) and Rep. Massie’s (R-KY) Resolution to require President Trump to seek Congressional authorization before engaging in strikes on Yemen.
Following President Trump’s unilateral decision to strike Iran on Saturday, June 21, 2025, Rep. Hoyle released a statement condemning the action as unconstitutional act.
Congressional War Powers are clearly outlined by U.S. law:
1. After a declaration of war by Congress;
2. After a specific statutory authorization from Congress;
3. Or in a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.
