NewzIntel.com

Category: Trump

  • MIL-OSI Global: How the end of carbon capture could spark a new industrial revolution

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andres Clarens, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Virginia

    Steelmaking uses a lot of energy, making it one of the highest greenhouse gas-emitting industries.
     David McNew/Getty Images

    The U.S. Department of Energy’s decision to claw back US$3.7 billion in grants from industrial demonstration projects may create an unexpected opening for American manufacturing.

    Many of the grant recipients were deploying carbon capture and storage – technologies that are designed to prevent industrial carbon pollution from entering the atmosphere by capturing it and injecting it deep underground. The approach has long been considered critical for reducing the contributions chemicals, cement production and other heavy industries make to climate change.

    However, the U.S. policy reversal could paradoxically accelerate emissions cuts from the industrial sector.

    An emissions reality check

    Heavy industry is widely viewed as the toughest part of the economy to clean up.

    The U.S. power sector has made progress, cutting emissions 35% since 2005 as coal-fired power plants were replaced with cheaper natural gas, solar and wind energy. More than 93% of new grid capacity installed in the U.S. in 2025 was forecast to be solar, wind and batteries. In transportation, electric vehicles are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. automotive market and will lead to meaningful reductions in pollution.

    But U.S. industrial emissions have been mostly unchanged, in part because of the massive amount of coal, gas and oil required to make steel, concrete, aluminum, glass and chemicals. Together these materials account for about 22% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

    The global industrial landscape is changing, though, and U.S. industries cannot, in isolation, expect that yesterday’s means of production will be able to compete in a global marketplace.

    Even without domestic mandates to reduce their emissions, U.S. industries face powerful economic pressures. The EU’s new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism imposes a tax on the emissions associated with imported steel, chemicals, cement and aluminum entering European markets. Similar policies are being considered by Canada, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and the United Kingdom, and were even floated in the United States.

    The false promise of carbon capture

    The appeal of carbon capture and storage, in theory, was that it could be bolted on to an existing factory with minimal changes to the core process and the carbon pollution would go away.

    Government incentives for carbon capture allow producers to keep using polluting technologies and prop up gas-powered chemical production or coal-powered concrete production.

    The Trump administration’s pullback of carbon capture and storage grants now removes some of these artificial supports.

    Without the expectation that carbon capture will help them meet regulations, this may create space to focus on materials breakthroughs that could revolutionize manufacturing while solving industries’ emissions problems.

    The materials innovation opportunity

    So, what might emissions-lowering innovation look like for industries such as cement, steel and chemicals? As a civil and environmental engineer who has worked on federal industrial policy, I study the ways these industries intersect with U.S. economic competitiveness and our built environment.

    There are many examples of U.S. innovation to be excited about. Consider just a few industries:

    Cement: Cement is one of the most widely used materials on Earth, but the technology has changed little over the past 150 years. Today, its production generates roughly 8% of total global carbon pollution. If cement production were a country, it would rank third globally after China and the United States.

    Researchers are looking at ways to make concrete that can shed heat or be lighter in weight to significantly reduce the cost of building and cooling a home. Sublime Systems developed a way to produce cement with electricity instead of coal or gas. The company lost its IDP grant in May 2025, but it has a new agreement with Microsoft.

    Making concrete do more could accelerate the transition. Researchers at Stanford and separately at MIT are developing concrete that can act as a capacitor and store over 10 kilowatt-hours of energy per cubic meter. Such materials could potentially store electricity from your solar roof or allow for roadways that can charge cars in motion.

    How concrete could be used as a capacitor. MIT.

    Technologies like these could give U.S. companies a competitive advantage while lowering emissions. Heat-shedding concrete cuts air conditioning demand, lighter formulations require less material per structure, and energy-storing concrete could potentially replace carbon-intensive battery manufacturing.

    Steel and iron: Steel and iron production generate about 7% of global emissions with centuries-old blast furnace processes that use intense heat to melt iron ore and burn off impurities. A hydrogen-based steelmaking alternative exists today that emits only water vapor, but it requires new supply chains, infrastructure and production techniques.

    U.S. Steel has been developing techniques to create stronger microstructures within steel for constructing structures with 50% less material and more strength than conventional designs. When a skyscraper needs that much less steel to achieve the same structural integrity, that eliminates millions of tons of iron ore mining, coal-fired blast furnace operations and transportation emissions.

    Chemicals: Chemical manufacturing has created simultaneous crises over the past 50 years: PFAS “forever chemicals” and microplastics have been showing up in human blood and across ecosystems, and the industry generates a large share of U.S. industrial emissions.

    Companies are developing ways to produce chemicals using engineered enzymes instead of traditional petrochemical processes, achieving 90% lower emissions in a way that could reduce production costs. These bio-based chemicals can naturally biodegrade, and the chemical processes operate at room temperature instead of requiring high heat that uses a lot of energy.

    Is there a silver bullet without carbon capture?

    While carbon capture and storage might not be the silver bullet for reducing emissions that many people thought it would be, new technologies for managing industrial heat might turn out to be the closest thing to one.

    Most industrial processes require temperatures between 300 and 1830 degrees Fahrenheit (150 and 1000 degrees Celsisus for everything from food processing to steel production. Currently, industries burn fossil fuels directly to generate this heat, creating emissions that electric alternatives cannot easily replace. Heat batteries may offer a breakthrough solution by storing renewable electricity as thermal energy, then releasing that heat on demand for industrial processes.

    How thermal batteries work. CNBC.

    Companies such as Rondo Energy are developing systems that store wind and solar power in bricklike materials heated to extreme temperatures. Essentially, they convert electricity into heat during times when electricity is abundant, usually at night. A manufacturing facility can later use that heat, which allows it to reduce energy costs and improve grid reliability by not drawing power at the busiest times. The Trump administration cut funding for projects working with Rondo’s technology, but the company’s products are being tested in other countries.

    Industrial heat pumps provide another pathway by amplifying waste heat to reach the high temperatures manufacturing requires, without using as much fossil fuel.

    The path forward

    The Department of Energy’s decision forces industrial America into a defining moment. One path leads backward toward pollution-intensive business as usual propping up obsolete processes. The other path drives forward through innovation.

    Carbon capture offered an expensive Band-Aid on old technology. Investing in materials innovation and new techniques for making them promises fundamental transformation for the future.

    Andres Clarens receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the Alfred P Sloan Foundation.

    – ref. How the end of carbon capture could spark a new industrial revolution – https://theconversation.com/how-the-end-of-carbon-capture-could-spark-a-new-industrial-revolution-257894

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: 3 years after abortion rights were overturned, contraception access is at risk

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cynthia H. Chuang, Professor of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Penn State

    Women living in states that ban or severely restrict abortion may be especially motivated to avoid unintended pregnancy. Viktoriya Skorikova/Moment via Getty Images

    On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated a nearly 50-year constitutional right to abortion and returned the authority to regulate abortion to the states.

    The Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade, has vastly reshaped the national abortion landscape. Three years on, many states have severely restricted access to abortion care. But the decision has also had a less well-recognized outcome: It is increasingly jeopardizing access to contraception.

    We are a physician scientist and a sociologist and health services researcher studying women’s health care and policy, including access to contraception. We see a worrisome situation emerging.

    Even while the growing limits on abortion in the U.S. heighten the need for effective contraception, family planning providers are less available in many states, and health insurance coverage of some of the most effective types of contraception is at risk.

    A growing demand for contraception

    Abortion restrictions have proliferated around the country since the Dobbs decision. As of June 2025, 12 states have near-total abortion bans and 10 states ban abortion before 23 or 24 weeks of gestation, which is when a fetus is generally deemed viable. Of the remaining states, 19 restrict abortion after viability and nine states and Washington have no gestational limits.

    It’s no surprise that women living in states that ban or severely restrict abortion may be especially motivated to avoid unintended pregnancy. Even planned pregnancies have grown riskier, with health care providers fearing legal repercussions for treating pregnancy-related medical emergencies such as miscarriages. Such concerns may in part explain emerging research that suggests the use of long-acting contraception such as intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and permanent contraception – namely, sterilization – are on the rise.

    A national survey conducted in 2024 asked women ages 18 to 49 if they have changed their contraception practices “as a result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.” It found that close to 1 in 5 women began using contraception for the first time, switched to a more effective contraceptive method, received a sterilization procedure or purchased emergency contraception to keep on hand.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs reshaped the landscape of abortion access across the U.S.

    A study in Ohio hospitals found a nearly 16% increase in women choosing long-acting contraception methods or sterilization in the six months after the Dobbs decision, and a 33% jump in men receiving vasectomies. Another study, which looked at both female and male sterilization in academic medical centers across the country, also reported an uptick in sterilization procedures for young adults ages 18 to 30 after the Dobbs decision, through 2023.

    A loss of contraception providers

    Ironically, banning or severely restricting abortion statewide may also diminish capacity to provide contraception.

    To date, there is no compelling evidence that OB-GYN doctors are leaving states with strict abortion laws in significant numbers. One study found that states with severe abortion restrictions saw a 4.2% decrease in such practitioners compared with states without abortion restrictions.

    However, the Association of American Medical Colleges reports declining applications to residency training programs located in states that have abortion bans – not just for OB-GYN training programs, but for residency training of all specialties. This drop suggests that doctors may be overall less likely to train in states that restrict medical practice. And given that physicians often stay on to practice in the states where they do their training, it may point to a long-term decline in physicians in those states.

    But the most significant drop in contraceptive services likely comes from the closure of abortion clinics in states with the most restrictive abortion policies. That’s because such clinics generally provide a wide range of reproductive services, including contraception. The 12 states with near-total abortion bans had 57 abortion clinics in 2020, all of which were closed as of March 2024. One study reported a 4.1% decline in oral contraceptives dispensed in those states.

    Contraception under threat

    The Dobbs decision has also encouraged ongoing efforts to incorrectly redefine some of the most effective contraceptives as medications that cause abortion. These efforts target emergency contraceptive pills, known as Plan B over-the-counter and Ella by prescription, as well as certain IUDs. Emergency contraceptive pills are up to 98% effective at preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex, and IUDs are 99% effective.

    Neither method terminates a pregnancy, which by definition begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Instead, emergency contraceptive pills prevent an egg from being released from the ovaries, while IUDs, depending on the type, prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg or prevent an egg from implanting in the uterus.

    Conflating contraception and abortion spreads misinformation and causes confusion. People who believe that certain types of contraception cause abortions may be dissuaded from using those methods and rely on less effective methods. What’s more, it may affect health insurance coverage.

    Medicaid, which provides health insurance for low-income children and adults, has been required to cover family planning services at no cost to patients since 1972. Since 2012, the Affordable Care Act has required private health insurers to cover certain women’s health preventive services at no cost to patients, including the full-range of contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

    According to our research, the insurance coverage required by the Affordable Care Act has increased use of IUDs, which can be prohibitively expensive when paid out of pocket. But if IUDs and emergency contraceptive pills were reclassified as interventions that induce abortion, they likely would not be covered by Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act, since neither type of health insurance requires coverage for abortion care. Thus, access to some of the most effective contraceptive methods could be jeopardized at a time when the right to terminate an unintended or nonviable pregnancy has been rolled back in much of the country.

    Indeed, Project 2025, the conservative policy agenda that the Trump administration appears to be following, specifically calls for removing Ella from the Affordable Care Act contraception coverage mandate because it is a “potential abortifacient.” And politicians in multiple states have expressed support for the idea of restricting these contraceptive methods, as well as contraception more broadly.

    On the third anniversary of the Dobbs decision, it is clear that its ripple effects include threats to contraception. Considering that contraception use is almost universal among women in their reproductive years, in our view these threats should be taken seriously.

    Cynthia H. Chuang receives funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    Carol S. Weisman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. 3 years after abortion rights were overturned, contraception access is at risk – https://theconversation.com/3-years-after-abortion-rights-were-overturned-contraception-access-is-at-risk-258458

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The sleeper Supreme Court decision that could have profound impacts on the Trump administration agenda – and restore faith in the high court

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ray Brescia, Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life, Albany Law School

    The Trump administration has tried to punish or suppress speech and opposition to administration policies. Baac3nes/Getty Images

    The American public’s trust in the Supreme Court has fallen precipitously over the past decade. Many across the political spectrum see the court as too political.

    This view is only strengthened when Americans see most of the justices of the court dividing along ideological lines on decisions related to some of the most hot-button issues the court handles. Those include reproductive rights, voting rights, corporate power, environmental protection, student loan policy, worker rights and LGBTQ+ rights.

    But there is one recent decision where the court was unanimous in its ruling, perhaps because its holding should not be controversial: National Rifle Association v. Vullo. In that 2024 case, the court said that it’s a clear violation of the First Amendment’s free speech provisions for government to force people to speak and act in ways that are aligned with its policies.

    The second Trump administration has tried to wield executive branch power in ways that appear to punish or suppress speech and opposition to administration policy priorities. Many of those attempts have been legally challenged and will likely make their way to the Supreme Court.

    The somewhat under-the-radar – yet incredibly important – decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo is likely to figure prominently in Supreme Court rulings in a slew of those cases in the coming months and years, including those involving law firms, universities and the Public Broadcasting Service.

    That’s because, in my view as a legal scholar, they are all First Amendment cases.

    Will the Supreme Court continue to protect free speech rights, as it did unanimously in 2024?
    Geoff Livingston/Getty Images

    Why the NRA sued a New York state official

    In May 2024, in an opinion written by reliably liberal Sonia Sotomayor, a unanimous court ruled that the efforts of New York state government officials to punish companies doing business with the NRA constituted clear violations of the First Amendment.

    Following its own precedent from the 1960s, Bantam Books v. Sullivan, the court found that government officials “cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”

    Many of the current targets of the Trump administration’s actions have claimed similar suppression of their First Amendment rights by the government. They have fought back, filing lawsuits that often cite the National Rifle Association v. Vullo decision in their efforts.

    To date, the most egregious examples of actions that violate the principles announced by the court – the executive orders against law firms – have largely been halted in the lower courts, with those decisions often citing what’s now known as the Vullo decision.

    While these cases may still be working their way through the lower courts, it is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately consider legal challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts in a range of areas.

    These would include the executive orders against law firms, attempts to cut government grants and research funding from universities, potential moves to strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status, and regulatory actions punishing media companies for what the White House believes to be unfavorable coverage.

    The court could also hear disputes over the government terminating contracts with a family of companies that provides satellite and communications support to the U.S. government generally and the military in particular.

    Despite the variety of organizations and government actions involved in these lawsuits, they all can be seen as struggles over free speech and expression, like Vullo.

    Whether it is private law firms, multinational corporations, universities or members of the media, all have one thing in common: They have all been targeted by the Trump administration for the same reason – they are engaged in actions or speech that is disfavored by President Donald Trump.

    Protecting speech, regardless of politics

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, front, took leave to help prosecute war criminals at the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II.
    Bettman/Getty Images

    The NRA, an often-controversial gun-rights advocacy organization, was the plaintiff in the Vullo decision.

    But just because the groups that have been targeted by the Trump administration are across the political divide from the NRA does not mean the outcome in decisions relying on the court’s opinion will be different. In fact, these groups can rely on the same arguments advanced by the NRA, and are, I believe, likely to win.

    Vullo isn’t the only decision on which the court can rely when considering challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts targeting these groups.

    In the wake of World War II, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson took a leave from the court and served as a prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders. Prosecuting them for their atrocities, Jackson saw how the Nuremberg defendants wielded government authority to punish enemies who resisted their rise and later opposed their rule.

    Once he returned to the court, Jackson wrote the majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the court found that students who refused to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance at school could not be expelled.

    Jackson’s opinion is a forceful rejection of government attempts to control what people say: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

    If some of the cases testing the state’s power to force fidelity to the executive branch reach the Supreme Court, the cases could offer the justices the opportunity to, once again, speak with one voice as they did in NRA v. Vullo, to demonstrate it can be evenhanded and will not play politics with the First Amendment.

    Ray Brescia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The sleeper Supreme Court decision that could have profound impacts on the Trump administration agenda – and restore faith in the high court – https://theconversation.com/the-sleeper-supreme-court-decision-that-could-have-profound-impacts-on-the-trump-administration-agenda-and-restore-faith-in-the-high-court-258216

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Israel strikes military targets in western Iran

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    JERUSALEM, June 23 (Xinhua) — The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carried out new strikes on targets in Kermanshah province in western Iran, the IDF said on Monday.

    The Israeli Air Force struck what it called “military infrastructure” — launch pads and storage facilities for surface-to-surface missiles, the military said in a statement. More than 15 warplanes took part in the operation.

    The strikes came shortly after Iran fired a rocket at Israel before dawn, sending air raid sirens ringing across much of the country. The Israeli military said the rocket was shot down and there were no casualties or damage.

    The Iranian attack followed US President Donald Trump’s suggestion of possible regime change in Iran. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • Putin tells Iranian foreign minister there was no justification for US attack

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Russian President Vladimir Putin told Iran’s foreign minister on Monday there was no justification for the U.S. bombing of his country and that Moscow was trying to help the Iranian people.

    Putin hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in Moscow two days after U.S. President Donald Trump sent U.S. bomber planes to strike Iran’s three main nuclear sites.

    “The absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran has no basis and no justification,” Putin told Araqchi in televised comments.

    “For our part, we are making efforts to assist the Iranian people,” he added.

    “I am very glad that you are in Moscow today, this will give us the opportunity to discuss all these pressing issues and think together about how we could get out of today’s situation.”

    Araqchi told Putin that Iran was conducting legitimate self-defence, and thanked Russia for condemning the U.S. actions. He conveyed best wishes to Putin from Iran’s supreme leader and president.

    “Russia is today on the right side of history and international law,” said Araqchi.

    It was unclear, however, what Russia might do to support Iran, an important ally with which Putin signed a strategic cooperation treaty in January. That agreement did not include a mutual defence clause.

    Before Saturday’s U.S. strikes, Moscow had warned that U.S. military intervention could destabilise the entire region and plunge it into the “abyss”.

    Asked what Russia was ready to do to help Tehran, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “It all depends on what Iran needs”. He said the fact that Moscow had offered to mediate in the crisis was itself a form of support.

    Peskov condemned the U.S. attacks.

    “An increase in the number of participants in this conflict is happening – or rather, has happened. A new spiral of escalation of tension in the region,” Peskov told reporters.

    “And, of course, we condemn this and express regret in this regard, deep regret. In addition, of course, it remains to be seen what happened to (Iran’s) nuclear facilities, whether there is a radiation hazard.”

    Peskov said Trump had not told Putin in detail about the planned strikes in advance.

    “There was no detailed information. The topic of Iran itself was repeatedly discussed by the presidents during their most recent conversations, certain proposals were voiced by Russia, but there was no direct detailed information about this,” he said.

    (Reuters)

  • Succession plans for Iran’s Khamenei hit top gear

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The clock’s ticking for senior clerics seeking a successor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    A three-man committee from a top clerical body, appointed by Khamenei himself two years ago to identify his replacement, has accelerated its planning in recent days since Israel attacked Iran and threatened to assassinate the veteran leader, five insiders with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters.

    Khamenei, 86, is being regularly briefed on the talks, according to the Iranian sources who requested anonymity to discuss highly sensitive matters. He has gone into hiding with his family and is being guarded by the Vali-ye Amr special forces unit of the Revolutionary Guards, a top security official said.

    The ruling establishment will immediately seek to name a successor to Khamenei if he is killed, to signal stability and continuity, according to the sources who acknowledged that predicting Iran’s subsequent political trajectory was difficult.

    A new leader will still be chosen for his devotion to the revolutionary precepts of the Islamic Republic’s late founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, according to one insider, who is close to Khamenei’s office and privy to succession discussions.

    At the same time, the top echelon of power is also considering which candidate might present a more moderate face to ward off foreign attacks and internal revolts, the person said.

    Two frontrunners have emerged in the succession discussions, the five insiders said: Khamenei’s 56-year-old son Mojtaba, long seen as a continuity choice, and a new contender, Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the father of the Islamic revolution.

    Khomeini, a close ally of the reformist faction that favours the easing of social and political restrictions, nonetheless commands respect among senior clerics and the Revolutionary Guards because of his lineage, the sources added.

    “I once again humbly express that this small and insignificant servant of the Iranian people stands ready to proudly be present on any front or scene you deem necessary,” the 53-year-old said in a public message of support to the supreme leader on Saturday, hours before the U.S. bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    Khomeini has come into the frame as a serious candidate this month amid the conflict with Israel and America because he could represent a more conciliatory choice internationally and domestically than Mojtaba Khamenei, the five people said.

    By contrast, Khamenei hews closely to his father’s hardline policies, according to the insiders who cautioned that nothing had been determined, candidates could change and the supreme leader would have the final say.

    However, with the military conflict continuing, it remains unclear whether any new leader could be chosen easily or installed securely or if he could assume the level of authority enjoyed by Khamenei, they added.

    Israeli strikes have also killed several of Iran’s top Revolutionary Guards commanders, potentially complicating a handover of power as the elite military force has long played a central role in enforcing the supreme leader’s rule.

    Khamenei’s office and the Assembly of Experts, the clerical body from which the succession committee was drawn, were not available to comment.

    TRUMP: KHAMENEI IS EASY TARGET

    Planning for an eventual handover was already in the works because of Khamenei’s age and the longstanding health concerns of a leader who has dominated all aspects of Iranian politics for decades, the sources said.

    The urgency of the task was underlined in September when Israel killed Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, a close ally of Khamenei’s, and the planning accelerated significantly this month following the Israeli attacks on nuclear sites, which were followed by the American attacks at the weekend.

    “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding,” U.S. President Trump warned on social media last week, calling for Tehran’s unconditional surrender. “He is an easy target.”

    Khamenei hasn’t publicly expressed any preference for his successor. The sources said he had repeatedly opposed the idea of his son taking over, in succession discussions in the past, concerned about any suggestion of Iran returning to the kind of hereditary rule that ended with the ousting of the shah in 1979.

    The role of Supreme Leader was created after the revolution and then enshrined in the constitution giving a top cleric ultimate authority in guiding the elected president and parliament.

    Officially, the leader is named by the Assembly of Experts, made up of 88 senior clerics who are chosen through a national election in which a hardline watchdog body aligned with Khamenei must approve all the candidates.

    “Whether the Islamic Republic survives or not, it will be a very different one, because the context in which it has existed has fundamentally changed,” said London-based Iranian political analyst Hossein Rassam, adding that Hassan Khomeini could fit the bill for a leader to take Iran in a new direction.

    “The regime has to opt for someone who’ll facilitate slow transition.”

    Hassan Khomeini’s close links to the reformist faction of Iranian politics, which pursued an ultimately unsuccessful policy of opening Iran to the outside world in the 1990s, saw hardline officials bar him from running as a member of senior clerical body the Assembly of Experts in 2016.

    The succession planners are aware that Khomeini is likely to be more palatable to the Iranian population than a hardliner, the five insiders said. Last year he warned of a “crisis of rising popular dissatisfaction” among Iranians due to poverty and deprivation.

    By contrast, Mojtaba Khamenei’s views echo those of his father on every major topic from cracking down on opponents to taking a hardline with foreign foes, the sources said – qualities they saw as hazardous with Iran under attack.

    A mid-ranking cleric who teaches theology at a religious seminary in the city Qom, the centre of Iranian religious life, Mojtaba has never held a formal position the Islamic Republic, though exercises influence behind the scenes as the gatekeeper to his father, according to Iran watchers.

    The U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Mojtaba in 2019, saying he represented the Supreme Leader in “an official capacity despite never being elected or appointed to a government position” aside from working his father’s office.

    OTHER CANDIDATES FALL AWAY

    Several of the candidates long seen as possible successors to Khamenei have already died.

    Former presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani passed away in 2017, former judiciary chief Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi died of natural causes in 2018 and former President Ebrahim Raisi was killed in a helicopter crash in 2023. Another senior cleric Sadegh Amoli Larijani, has been sidelined.

    Others, such as the Assembly of Experts member Ayatollah Alireza Arafi, are still in contention but have fallen behind Mojtaba Khamenei and Hassan Khomeini, the five sources said.

    Beyond the most likely candidates, it’s also possible that a less prominent cleric could be chosen as a pawn of Revolutionary Guards, said Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group think-tank.

    “It is possible that they would put forward a candidate that no one has ever heard of and would not really hold the same levers of power that Ayatollah Khamenei has held now for more than 30 years,” he said.

    The supreme leader’s voice is powerful.

    After the death of the Islamic Republic’s founder Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989, Khamenei was publicly hailed as his predecessor’s choice. Although he had already served as president, Khamenei was only a mid-ranking cleric and was initially dismissed by influential clerics as weak and an unlikely successor to his charismatic predecessor.

    However, he steadily tightened his grip to become Iran’s unquestioned decision-maker, relying on the Revolutionary Guards as he outmanoeuvred rivals and crushed bouts of popular unrest.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The United States has urged its citizens to exercise increased caution abroad.

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    WASHINGTON, June 23 (Xinhua) — The U.S. State Department on Sunday issued a global security alert, urging U.S. citizens abroad to exercise increased caution.

    “The conflict between Israel and Iran has led to disruptions in air traffic and periodic closures of airspace in the Middle East,” says a statement posted on the department’s official website.

    “There is a potential for protests against U.S. citizens and interests abroad. The State Department advises U.S. citizens worldwide to exercise increased caution,” the warning said.

    The United States struck three key Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday, saying it had destroyed the country’s nuclear program.

    Late on Saturday, US President Donald Trump warned that any retaliatory strike by Iran “will be met with force far beyond what the world saw tonight.”

    Last week, the State Department warned American citizens against traveling to Israel, Gaza and the West Bank due to armed conflict, terrorism and civil unrest. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom announces appointments 6.20.25

    Source: US State of California 2

    Jun 20, 2025

    SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments:

    Soon-Sik Lee, of Bellevue, Washington, has been appointed Chief of Planning and Engineering at the California High Speed Rail Authority. Lee has been a Vice President – Senior Program Manager at AECOM since 2021. He was Director of Engineering at Etihad Rail from 2020 to 2021. Lee was a Principal Investment Operations Specialist at Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank from 2016 to 2020. He was the Engineering and Construction Director at Etihad Rail from 2011 to 2016. Lee was an Assistant Vice President – Project Manager at Union Railway 2009 to 2011. He was a Project Manager at Parsons from 2006 to 2008. Lee was a Senior Bridge Engineer URS 2002 to 2006. He held multiple positions at University of Michigan from 1999 to 2002, including Post Doctoral Research Fellow and Research Assistant. Lee was a Structural Engineer at Won-Jong Engineering from 1996 to 1997. He earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Civil Engineering from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, a Master of Business Administration degree from University of Chicago, a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Kyung Hee University. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $280,008. Lee is registered without party preference. 

    Lilian Coral, of San Marino, has been appointed to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors. Coral has been Vice President of Technology and Democracy Programs and Head of the Open Technology Institute at New America and an Adjunct Instructor at the University of Southern California since 2022. She was Director of National Strategy and Technology Innovation at the Knight Foundation from 2017 to 2022. Coral was Chief Data Officer at the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti from 2015 to 2017. She was a Nonprofit Consultant and Principal at Adaptive Muse from 2008 to 2015. Coral was Founding Director of 2-1-1 California from 2010 to 2014. She was Policy Manager at the Los Angeles County Children’s Planning Council from 2007 to 2008. Coral was a Research and Policy Associate at Service Employees International Union, Local 721 from 2004 to 2007. She is a Board Member at Next City. She earned a Master of Public Policy degree from University of California, Los Angeles and a Bachelor of Arts degree in International Studies from University of California, Irvine. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100 per diem. Coral is a Democrat. 

    Carson Fajardo, of Rancho Cucamonga, has been appointed to the California State University Board of Trustees. Fajardo held several roles at California State University, San Bernardino from 2022 to 2025, including President and Chief Executive Officer and Member of the Board of Directors at Associated Students, Inc., and Programming Coordinator at the Residence Halls Association. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration from California State University, San Bernardino. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100 per diem. Fajardo is a Republican. 

    Press releases, Recent news

    Recent news

    Jun 19, 2025

    News What you need to know: The Ninth Circuit rejected Trump’s sweeping claim that he can federalize the National Guard for any reason and avoid judicial scrutiny, even as it stayed an emergency district court order. This is a critical check on presidential overreach…

    Jun 19, 2025

    News Sacramento, California – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued a proclamation declaring “Juneteenth National Freedom Day: A Day of Observance” in the State of California.The text of the proclamation and a copy can be found below: PROCLAMATIONJuly 4 is not the only…

    Jun 18, 2025

    News What you need to know: The Trump administration announced today that is has directed the national suicide prevention hotline to stop offering specialized support to LGBTQ callers. California continues to support this population.  SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin…

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: USA: MAHMOUD KHALIL RELEASED 

    Source: Amnesty International –

    In response to a U.S. District Court Judge ordering Mahmoud Khalil to be released on bail, Amnesty International’s Americas Regional Director Ana Piquer said: 

    “After more than three months of unjust detention, Mahmoud Khalil has finally been granted his freedom to return home, embrace his wife, and hold his child.  His detention was not only unnecessary, but emblematic of a broader effort by the Trump administration to suppress solidarity with Palestinian people and weaponize the immigration system. Mahmoud was targeted for exercising his human rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. All of these rights must be respected in the United States and around the world, without exception. 

    After more than three months of unjust detention, Mahmoud Khalil has finally been granted his freedom to return home, embrace his wife, and hold his child.  His detention was not only unnecessary, but emblematic of a broader effort by the Trump administration to suppress solidarity with Palestinian people and weaponize the immigration system.

    Ana Piquer, Amnesty International’s Americas Regional Director.

    We remain deeply concerned by the escalating use of detention, intimidation, deportation, and disregard to right of due process, to silence protest and chill public debate in the United States. This is not just about one student, it is about the growing pattern of authoritarian practices by the Trump administration that undermine human rights. We urge the U.S. government to end the political targeting of students and other individuals based on their beliefs and to respect freedom of speech. Mahmoud’s detention is a stark reminder of the human rights that are at stake in the country, and we will continue to monitor his case.” 

    We urge the U.S. government to end the political targeting of students and other individuals based on their beliefs and to respect freedom of speech. Mahmoud’s detention is a stark reminder of the human rights that are at stake in the country, and we will continue to monitor his case.” 

    Ana Piquer, Amnesty International’s Americas Regional Director.

    Contact: [email protected]

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Briefing – EU–NATO cooperation – 23-06-2025

    Source: European Parliament

    The cooperation between the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has deepened significantly in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which has reshaped Europe’s security environment and highlighted the complementary roles of both organisations. NATO remains the cornerstone of collective defence, backed by United States (US) capabilities, while the EU has emerged as a key actor in financial aid, military assistance and sanctions. Both institutions have formalised their partnership through joint declarations and strategic documents, including NATO’s Strategic Concept, the EU’s Strategic Compass and White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030. Practical cooperation now spans a wide range of areas including cyber defence, countering hybrid threats, military mobility, critical infrastructure protection, and joint crisis preparedness. Regular staff-level coordination, shared exercises, and technical arrangements – such as the NATO–EU task force on critical infrastructure – have improved resilience and interoperability. The EU has also significantly ramped up its defence role. It has delivered €50.8 billion in military aid to Ukraine (EU plus Member State contributions). It has introduced industrial policies such as EDIRPA, ASAP, and the ReArm Europe/Readiness 2030 plan to reinforce the European defence industrial base. Despite progress, persistent challenges remain. Political tensions – in particular between Cyprus and Türkiye – continue to block intelligence sharing and formal joint planning. The EU still relies heavily on NATO, particularly US assets, for operational capabilities. Growing uncertainty over US commitments under the second Trump Presidency has reinforced the EU’s drive to strengthen strategic autonomy and ensure greater burden-sharing within NATO. The European Parliament supports stronger, complementary EU–NATO ties focused on interoperability, resilience and avoiding duplication, while stressing the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its own security. At the NATO summit on 24-25 June in The Hague (the Netherlands), key challenges include agreeing on higher defence spending targets, maintaining alliance unity, managing the Russia threat, and rapidly scaling up Europe’s defence capabilities.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: At a Glance – 2025 G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada – 23-06-2025

    Source: European Parliament

    G7 leaders gathered under this year’s Canadian Presidency in Kananaskis, Canada, from 15 to 17 June 2025. The 51st leaders’ summit was overshadowed by the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran (which forced United States (US) President Donald Trump to leave the summit earlier), trade tensions between the US and the G7 nations, Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, and the Israel–Hamas war and the situation in Gaza. While the G7 issued several joint statements, for instance on the Israel–Iran crisis, no final G7 leaders’ communiqué was adopted, contrary to previous summits. The EU and other G7 members did not achieve a breakthrough in the trade talks with the US.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • Iran issues stark warning to Trump ‘the gambler’: We will end this war

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Iran said on Monday that the U.S. attack on its nuclear sites expanded the range of legitimate targets for its armed forces and called U.S. President Donald Trump a “gambler” for joining Israel’s military campaign against the Islamic Republic.

    Since Trump joined Israel’s campaign by dropping massive bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday morning, Iran has repeatedly threatened to retaliate.

    But while it has continued to fire missiles at Israel, it has yet to take action against the United States itself, either by firing at U.S. bases or by targeting the 20% of global oil shipments that pass near its coast at the mouth of the Gulf.

    “Mr Trump, the gambler, you may start this war, but we will be the ones to end it,” Ebrahim Zolfaqari, spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya central military headquarters, said on Monday in English at the end of a recorded video statement.

    Iran and Israel traded another wave of air and missile strikes on Monday as the world braced for Tehran’s response.

    Trump’s administration has repeatedly said that its aim is solely to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme, not to open a wider war.

    But in a social media post on Sunday, Trump openly spoke of toppling the hardline clerical rulers who have been Washington’s principal foes in the Middle East since Iran’s 1979 revolution.

    “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” he wrote.

    Experts surveying commercial satellite imagery said it appeared that the U.S. attack had severely damaged the site of Iran’s Fordow nuclear plant, built inside a mountain, and possibly destroyed it and the uranium-enriching centrifuges it housed, although there was no independent confirmation.

    Trump called the strike a “Bullseye!!!”.

    “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran,” he wrote. “The biggest damage took place far below ground level.”

    MORE ISRAELI STRIKES

    Israel’s airstrikes on Iran have met little resistance from Iranian defences since Israel launched its surprise attack on June 13, killing many of Iran’s top commanders.

    The Israeli military said on Monday that about 20 jets had conducted a wave of strikes against military targets in western Iran and Tehran overnight. ⁠In Kermanshah, in western Iran, missile and radar infrastructure was targeted, and in Tehran a surface-to-air missile launcher was struck, it said.

    Iranian news agencies reported air defences had been activated in central Tehran districts, and Israeli air strikes had hit Parchin, the location of a military complex southeast of the capital.

    Iran says more than 400 people have been killed in the Israeli attacks, mostly civilians, but has released few images of the damage since the initial days of the bombing. Tehran, a city of 10 million people, has largely emptied, with residents fleeing to the countryside to escape attacks.

    Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes on Israel have killed 24 people, all civilians, and injured hundreds, the first time a significant number of Iranian missiles have ever penetrated Israeli defences.

    The Israeli military said a missile launched from Iran in the early hours of Monday had been intercepted by Israeli defences. Air raid sirens blared overnight in Tel Aviv and other parts of central Israel.

    LIMITED RETALIATION

    Beyond those missiles, Iran’s ability to retaliate is far more limited than a few months ago, since Israel inflicted defeat on Iran’s most feared regional proxy force, Hezbollah in Lebanon, whose downfall was swiftly followed by that of Iran’s most powerful client ruler, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

    Iran’s most effective threat to hurt the West would probably be to restrict global oil flows from the Gulf. Oil prices spiked on Monday at their highest since January. But they have not yet shot up to crisis levels, indicating that traders see a path out of the conflict that avoids serious disruption.

    Brent crude futures were down 0.5% to $76.64 a barrel as of 0830 GMT, after briefly jumping above $80 at the opening.

    Iran’s parliament has approved a move to close the Strait of Hormuz that leads into the Gulf, which would require approval from the Supreme National Security Council, a body led by an appointee of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    Attempting to strangle the strait could send global oil prices skyrocketing, derail the world economy and invite conflict with the U.S. Navy’s massive Fifth Fleet that patrols the Gulf from its base in Bahrain.

    “It’s economic suicide for them if they do it. And we retain options to deal with that,” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said.

    As Tehran weighed its options, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi was expected to hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Monday. The Kremlin has a strategic partnership with Iran, but also close links with Israel.

    Speaking in Istanbul on Sunday, Araqchi said his country would consider all possible responses and there would be no return to diplomacy until it had retaliated. TASS news agency later quoted him as saying Iran and Russia were coordinating their positions.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from the Hill: Albanese supports US bombing, reluctantly

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong went out on Monday to back the United States attack on Iran, it was obvious their support was through gritted teeth.

    Albanese told their joint news conference: “The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. And we support action to prevent that. That is what this is.

    “The US action was directed at specific sites central to Iran’s nuclear program. We don’t want escalation and a full-scale war. We continue to call for dialogue and for diplomacy. As I’ve said for many days now, we are deeply concerned about any escalation in the region and we want to see diplomacy, dialogue and de-escalation.”

    At the news conference and in Wong’s media round beforehand, one big question was, why did they take so long to appear?

    The attack is a seismic event in the Middle East conflict. Yet on Sunday the government only put out a tepid statement attributed to a “spokesperson”, which did not endorse the American action.

    This suggests the prime minister and foreign minister are, at the very least, uncomfortable with the action.

    It is further evidence of the current distance between the Australian government and the Trump administration. Whether it affects Albanese’s attempt to get the now much-sought after bilateral remains to be seen.

    At every stage of the Middle East conflict, as the situation has progressively escalated, the Australian government has been urging restraint and/ or de-escalation.

    Albanese is caught between not wanting to repudiate the Americans, the conflicting pressures of domestic lobbies, and his Labor constituency.

    Over the years, Albanese has moved to the political centre. But he hasn’t taken down from his website a strong speech he made in 2003 opposing the Iraq war.

    “In the short term, the conflict that is now clearly about to start can only make things worse, perhaps much worse,” Albanese told parliament then. “Iraq does not represent a threat to Australia. We are, with this [Howard government] decision, supporting a pre-emptive strike, which changes forever the way that international politics works.”

    In that war and this war, some of the same issues are at play. Iraq was thought to have weapons of mass destruction – later it was found it did not. Iran has long been on the path to developing nuclear weapons, but there are varying intelligence assessments of how much progress it has made.

    One can’t help thinking Albanese probably has the same sort of reservations about the Iran strike that he did about the Iraq war.

    For Australia’s there is one big difference: there is no thought of involving Australian defence forces, as happened in Iraq.

    Former Labor senator Doug Cameron, in parliament from 2008 to 2019 and a firebrand of the left, on Monday recalled how then opposition leader Simon Crean opposed Australia’s support for and participation in the Iraq war. (Crean said, “Never allow our foreign policy to be determined by another nation. Never commit to unnecessary war when peace is possible.”)

    Cameron, now a national patron of Labor Against War, issued several tweets condemning the government’s stand, and saying “time for Labor backbenchers to speak up”.

    But the Labor backbench is far from what it once was. Hardly anyone speaks up to challenge anything. As for the left, it is a shadow of its old feisty self.

    “What has happened to the left?” Cameron asks. “To be honest I don’t understand it,” he admits to The Conversation.

    Cameron recalls how the left – and indeed the wider caucus – was up in arms when Bob Hawke in the mid-1980s wanted Australia to facilitate the Americans’ testing of MX missiles that would splash down in the Tasman Sea. Hawke had to back down.

    He wonders if it’s a matter of not wanting to contradict a “left prime minister, and a left foreign minister”. “Personal support and party solidarity have come before common sense.”

    There are many causes of the demise of the ALP left, as Cameron knew it. They include the loss of what power Labor’s rank-and-file once had, the splintering of the left more broadly to minor parties notably the Greens, and the decline of ideology within Labor (and generally). There is no current “Doug Cameron”-equivalent in the caucus. The factions no longer fight over ideas – they preside over spoils.

    Those who contest the thesis of the decline of the left argue the contemporary Labor left has been shaping the Albanese government’s agenda on key issues from within, for example on industrial relations, industry policy, climate policy, and gender issues.

    If the Albanese of 2003 could have foreseen what the caucus left of 2025 would be like, he’d have been surprised, and possibly shocked. As it is, he’s pretty pleased the left is so quietly behaved.

    Michelle Grattan 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.

    – ref. View from the Hill: Albanese supports US bombing, reluctantly – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-supports-us-bombing-reluctantly-258967

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • Missile Alarms in Jerusalem as U.S.-Iran Tensions Ignite New Escalation in West Asia

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Jerusalem was gripped by fresh anxiety today as a missile was spotted overhead, followed by distant explosions, according to a Reuters report. The Israeli military subsequently activated air raid sirens across central and southern Israel, citing further incoming missile threats from Iran. The development comes amid heightened tensions in West Asia, following U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    Over the past ten days, central Israel has sustained heavy damage, with repeated attacks also hitting the northern port city of Haifa. The ongoing conflict has significantly raised fears of a broader regional war, prompting renewed diplomatic efforts. High-level talks are reportedly underway in Moscow in a bid to defuse the crisis.

    China has called on both Iran and Israel to de-escalate hostilities. “The Chinese side urges the parties to the conflict to prevent the situation from escalating repeatedly, resolutely avoid the spillover of war, and return to the path of political resolution,” said foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun on Monday.

    Meanwhile, Spain’s foreign minister announced plans to urge the European Union to suspend a key cooperation agreement with Israel and to consider a weapons embargo, stating that Europe “must show courage” in response to the escalating violence.

    In the U.S., President Donald Trump stirred debates by reviving talk of regime change in Iran. In a social media post, he questioned the legitimacy of the current Iranian leadership and wrote, “If they can’t MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN—why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???”

    Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, has arrived in the Russian capital for high-stakes talks with Russia’s top leadership. As a long-standing ally of Iran and a significant power in the region, Russia is viewed as a potential mediator in this deepening crisis.

    The discussions are expected to concentrate on de-escalation strategies, broader regional security concerns, and exploring any viable diplomatic pathways to resolve the ongoing hostilities.

    While Russian officials have indicated their readiness to play a constructive role in facilitating peace, the path forward remains highly uncertain. The international community, including the United Nations and other key global powers, continues to closely monitor the volatile situation, issuing urgent calls for restraint and dialogue from all parties involved.

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murphy Statement on President Trump’s Strikes Against Iran

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy

    June 22, 2025

    WASHINGTON—Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Sunday released the following statement on President Trump’s illegal ordering of strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran without congressional authorization:

    “Donald Trump, a weak and dangerously reckless president, has put the United States on a path to a war in the Middle East that the country does not want, the law does not allow, and our security does not demand.

    “Our president knows nothing about history. And history tells us that the United States’ hubris about the efficacy of military action in the Middle East is almost universally wrong. Trump has been goaded into these strikes by the perpetual cheerleaders of war in the Middle East – the people who know how to start conflicts there but never know how to end them, and the people who profit – politically and financially – from endless war.

    “I’ve been briefed on the intelligence – there is no evidence Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States. That makes this attack illegal. Only Congress can declare preemptive war, and we should vote as soon as possible on legislation to explicitly deny President Trump the authorization to drag us into a conflict in Middle East that could get countless Americans killed and waste trillions of dollars. All my thoughts tonight are for the safety of our personnel in the region.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pelosi Statement on U.S. Military Action in Iran

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi Representing the 12th District of California

    San Francisco – Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on President Trump’s unilateral military action in Iran:
     
    “Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization. I join my colleagues in demanding answers from the Administration on this operation which endangers American lives and risks further escalation and dangerous destabilization of the region.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: US advises overseas citizens to exercise increased caution

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    The U.S. State Department on Sunday issued a Worldwide Caution Security Alert, advising U.S. citizens overseas to exercise increased caution.

    “The conflict between Israel and Iran has resulted in disruptions to travel and periodic closure of airspace across the Middle East,” said the notice posted on the State Department’s website.

    “There is the potential for demonstrations against U.S. citizens and interests abroad. The Department of State advises U.S. citizens worldwide to exercise increased caution,” it said.

    The United States struck three key nuclear facilities in Iran on Saturday, claiming that it had obliterated Iran’s nuclear program.

    Late Saturday night, U.S. President Donald Trump warned that any retaliation by Iran against the United States “will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.”

    The State Department last week warned U.S. travelers not to travel to Israel, Gaza and the West Bank because of armed conflict, terrorism and civil unrest.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • Oil surges to five-month high after US hits Iran’s key nuclear sites

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January as the United States’ weekend move to join Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities stoked supply concerns.

    Brent crude futures were up $1.52 or 1.97% to $78.53 a barrel as of 0503 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude advanced $1.51 or 2.04% to $75.35.

    Both contracts jumped by more than 3% earlier in the session to $81.40 and $78.40, respectively, touching five-month highs before giving up some gains.

    The rise in prices came after U.S. President Donald Trump said he had “obliterated” Iran’s main nuclear sites in strikes over the weekend, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself.

    Iran is OPEC’s third-largest crude producer.

    Market participants expect further price gains amid mounting fears that an Iranian retaliation may include a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude supply flows.

    “The current geopolitical escalation provides the fundamental catalyst for (Brent) prices to traverse higher and potentially spiral towards $100, with $120 per barrel appearing increasingly plausible,” said Sugandha Sachdeva, founder of New Delhi-based research firm SS WealthStreet.

    Iran’s Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament had approved a measure to close the strait. Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through.

    Iran and Israel exchanged air and missile strikes on Monday, as global tensions rose over Tehran’s expected response to a U.S. attack on its nuclear facilities.

    “The risks of damage to oil infrastructure … have multiplied,” said Sparta Commodities senior analyst June Goh.

    Although there are alternative pipeline routes out of the region, there will still be crude volume that cannot be fully exported out if the Strait of Hormuz becomes inaccessible. Shippers will increasingly stay out of the region, she added.

    Goldman Sachs said in a Sunday report that Brent could briefly peak at $110 per barrel if oil flows through the critical waterway were halved for a month, and remain down by 10% for the following 11 months.

    The bank still assumed no significant disruption to oil and natural gas supply, adding global incentives to try and prevent a sustained and very large disruption.

    Brent has risen 13% since the conflict began on June 13, while WTI has gained around 10%.

    Given the Strait of Hormuz is indispensable for Iran’s own oil exports, which are a vital source of its national revenues, a sustained closure would inflict severe economic damage on Iran itself, making it a double-edged sword, Sachdeva added.

    Meanwhile, Japan on Monday called for de-escalation of the conflict in Iran, while a South Korean vice industry minister voiced concern over the potential impact of the strikes on the country’s trade.

    (Reuters)

  • US strikes on Iran leave hopes for nuclear diplomacy in tatters

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Iran, Israel, United States, Donald Trump, missile strikes, nuclear sites,Iran, Israel, United States, Donald Trump, missile strikes, nuclear sites,In a bid to defuse the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, foreign ministers from Europe’s top three powers hurried to meet their Iranian counterpart on Friday in Geneva.

    Those hopes collapsed on Saturday when U.S. President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran’s three main nuclear sites, in support of Israel’s military campaign.

    “It’s irrelevant to ask Iran to return to diplomacy,” Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araqchi, visibly angry, told reporters in Istanbul on Sunday, promising a “response” to the U.S. strikes. “It’s not time for diplomacy now.”

    Trump, who said the U.S. airstrikes “obliterated” the sites, warned in a televised speech on Saturday the U.S. could attack other targets in Iran if no peace deal was reached and urged Tehran to return to the negotiating table.

    Reuters spoke to seven Western diplomats and analysts who said the prospect of negotiations was negligible for now, with an unbridgeable gap between Washington’s demand for zero enrichment by Iran and Tehran’s refusal to abandon its nuclear program.

    “I think the prospects of effective diplomacy at this point are slim to none,” said James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank headquartered in Washington.

    “I’m much more worried about escalation, both in the short and the long term.”

    According to European diplomats, the three European allies – Britain, France and Germany – were not made aware of Trump’s decision to strike Iran ahead of time. French President Emmanuel Macron had promised on Saturday – just before the U.S. strikes – to accelerate the nuclear talks, following a call with his Iranian counterpart.

    One European diplomat, who asked not to be identified, acknowledged there was now no way of holding a planned second meeting with Iran in the coming week.

    In the wake of the U.S. military action, any European diplomatic role appears likely to be secondary. Trump on Friday dismissed Europe’s efforts towards resolving the crisis, saying Iran only wanted to speak to the United States.

    Three diplomats and analysts said any future talks between Iran and Washington would likely be through regional intermediaries Oman and Qatar, once Tehran decides how to respond to the U.S. airstrikes on its nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    The attacks leave Iran with few palatable options on the table. Since Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, some in Tehran have raised the prospect of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to signal Iran’s determination to accelerate enrichment, but experts say that would represent a considerable escalation and likely draw a forceful response from Washington.

    Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said Iran’s most obvious means for retaliation is its short-range ballistic missiles, that could be used to target U.S. forces and assets in the region. But any military response by Iran carried the risk of miscalculation, he said.

    “On the one hand, they want a strong enough response that they feel the U.S. has actually paid a price. On the other hand, they don’t want to encourage further escalation,” he said.

    EUROPEAN EFFORT ENDED IN FAILURE

    Even before the U.S. strikes, Friday’s talks in Geneva showed little sign of progress amid a chasm between the two sides and in the end no detailed proposals were put forward, three diplomats said. Mixed messaging may have also undermined their own efforts, diplomats said.

    European positions on key issues like Iran’s enrichment program have hardened in the past 10 days with the Israeli strikes and the looming threat of U.S. bombing.

    The three European powers, known as the E3, were parties to a 2015 nuclear deal that Trump abandoned three years later during his first term.

    Both the Europeans and Tehran believed they had a better understanding of how to get a realistic deal given the E3 have been dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme since 2003.

    But the Europeans have had a difficult relationship with Iran in recent months as they sought to pressure it over its ballistic missiles programme, support for Russia and detention of European citizens.

    France, which was the keenest to pursue negotiations, has in the last few days suggested Iran should move towards zero enrichment, which until now was not an E3 demand given Iran’s red line on the issue, two European diplomats said.

    Britain has also adopted a tougher stance more in tune with Washington and that was expressed in Geneva, the diplomats said. And Germany’s new government appeared to go in the same direction, although it was more nuanced.

    “Iran has to accept zero enrichment eventually,” said one EU official.

    A senior Iranian official on Saturday showed disappointment at the Europeans’ new stance, saying their demands were “unrealistic”, without providing further details.

    In a brief joint statement on Sunday, which acknowledged the U.S. strikes, the European countries said they would continue their diplomatic efforts.

    “We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program,” it said, adding the Europeans stood ready to contribute “in coordination with all parties”.

    David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum, a Paris-based think tank, said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government had taken advantage of the Europeans for years to gain time as it developed its nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities.

    “The European attempt ended in failure,” he said.
    However, the Europeans still have one important card to play. They are the only ones who, as party to the nuclear accord, can launch its so-called “snapback mechanism”, which would reimpose all previous UN sanctions on Iran if it is found to be in violation of the agreement’s terms.

    Diplomats said, prior to the U.S. strikes, the three countries had discussed an end-August deadline to activate it as part of a ‘maximum pressure’ campaign on Tehran.

    “MULTIPLE CHANNELS” FOR U.S. TALKS

    In total, the U.S. launched 75 precision-guided munitions, including more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles, and more than 125 military aircraft in the operation against the three nuclear sites, U.S. officials said.

    US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday warned Iran against retaliation and said both public and private messages had been sent to Iran “in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table.”

    Five previous rounds of indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran collapsed after a U.S. proposal at the end of May called for Iran to abandon uranium enrichment. It was rejected by Tehran, leading to Israel launching its attack on Iran after Trump’s 60-day deadline for talks had expired.

    Iran has repeatedly said from then on that it would not negotiate while at war.

    Even after Israel struck, Washington reached out to Iran to resume negotiations, including offering a meeting between the Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Istanbul, according to two European diplomats and an Iranian official.

    That was rebuffed by Iran, but Araqchi did continue direct contacts with US Special envoy Steve Witkoff, three diplomats told Reuters.

    One of the challenges in engaging with Iran, experts say, is that no-one can be sure of the extent of the damage to its nuclear program. With the IAEA severely restricted in its access to Iranian sites, it is unclear whether Tehran has hidden enrichment facilities.

    A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran’s uranium refined to up to 60%, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack there.

    Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said that – putting aside from the damage to its physical installations – Iran had thousands of scientists and technicians involved in the enrichment program, most of whom had survived the U.S. and Israeli attacks.
    “You can’t bomb knowledge,” said Acton.

    (Reuters)

  • US strikes on Iran leave hopes for nuclear diplomacy in tatters

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Iran, Israel, United States, Donald Trump, missile strikes, nuclear sites,Iran, Israel, United States, Donald Trump, missile strikes, nuclear sites,In a bid to defuse the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, foreign ministers from Europe’s top three powers hurried to meet their Iranian counterpart on Friday in Geneva.

    Those hopes collapsed on Saturday when U.S. President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran’s three main nuclear sites, in support of Israel’s military campaign.

    “It’s irrelevant to ask Iran to return to diplomacy,” Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araqchi, visibly angry, told reporters in Istanbul on Sunday, promising a “response” to the U.S. strikes. “It’s not time for diplomacy now.”

    Trump, who said the U.S. airstrikes “obliterated” the sites, warned in a televised speech on Saturday the U.S. could attack other targets in Iran if no peace deal was reached and urged Tehran to return to the negotiating table.

    Reuters spoke to seven Western diplomats and analysts who said the prospect of negotiations was negligible for now, with an unbridgeable gap between Washington’s demand for zero enrichment by Iran and Tehran’s refusal to abandon its nuclear program.

    “I think the prospects of effective diplomacy at this point are slim to none,” said James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank headquartered in Washington.

    “I’m much more worried about escalation, both in the short and the long term.”

    According to European diplomats, the three European allies – Britain, France and Germany – were not made aware of Trump’s decision to strike Iran ahead of time. French President Emmanuel Macron had promised on Saturday – just before the U.S. strikes – to accelerate the nuclear talks, following a call with his Iranian counterpart.

    One European diplomat, who asked not to be identified, acknowledged there was now no way of holding a planned second meeting with Iran in the coming week.

    In the wake of the U.S. military action, any European diplomatic role appears likely to be secondary. Trump on Friday dismissed Europe’s efforts towards resolving the crisis, saying Iran only wanted to speak to the United States.

    Three diplomats and analysts said any future talks between Iran and Washington would likely be through regional intermediaries Oman and Qatar, once Tehran decides how to respond to the U.S. airstrikes on its nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    The attacks leave Iran with few palatable options on the table. Since Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, some in Tehran have raised the prospect of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to signal Iran’s determination to accelerate enrichment, but experts say that would represent a considerable escalation and likely draw a forceful response from Washington.

    Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said Iran’s most obvious means for retaliation is its short-range ballistic missiles, that could be used to target U.S. forces and assets in the region. But any military response by Iran carried the risk of miscalculation, he said.

    “On the one hand, they want a strong enough response that they feel the U.S. has actually paid a price. On the other hand, they don’t want to encourage further escalation,” he said.

    EUROPEAN EFFORT ENDED IN FAILURE

    Even before the U.S. strikes, Friday’s talks in Geneva showed little sign of progress amid a chasm between the two sides and in the end no detailed proposals were put forward, three diplomats said. Mixed messaging may have also undermined their own efforts, diplomats said.

    European positions on key issues like Iran’s enrichment program have hardened in the past 10 days with the Israeli strikes and the looming threat of U.S. bombing.

    The three European powers, known as the E3, were parties to a 2015 nuclear deal that Trump abandoned three years later during his first term.

    Both the Europeans and Tehran believed they had a better understanding of how to get a realistic deal given the E3 have been dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme since 2003.

    But the Europeans have had a difficult relationship with Iran in recent months as they sought to pressure it over its ballistic missiles programme, support for Russia and detention of European citizens.

    France, which was the keenest to pursue negotiations, has in the last few days suggested Iran should move towards zero enrichment, which until now was not an E3 demand given Iran’s red line on the issue, two European diplomats said.

    Britain has also adopted a tougher stance more in tune with Washington and that was expressed in Geneva, the diplomats said. And Germany’s new government appeared to go in the same direction, although it was more nuanced.

    “Iran has to accept zero enrichment eventually,” said one EU official.

    A senior Iranian official on Saturday showed disappointment at the Europeans’ new stance, saying their demands were “unrealistic”, without providing further details.

    In a brief joint statement on Sunday, which acknowledged the U.S. strikes, the European countries said they would continue their diplomatic efforts.

    “We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program,” it said, adding the Europeans stood ready to contribute “in coordination with all parties”.

    David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum, a Paris-based think tank, said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government had taken advantage of the Europeans for years to gain time as it developed its nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities.

    “The European attempt ended in failure,” he said.
    However, the Europeans still have one important card to play. They are the only ones who, as party to the nuclear accord, can launch its so-called “snapback mechanism”, which would reimpose all previous UN sanctions on Iran if it is found to be in violation of the agreement’s terms.

    Diplomats said, prior to the U.S. strikes, the three countries had discussed an end-August deadline to activate it as part of a ‘maximum pressure’ campaign on Tehran.

    “MULTIPLE CHANNELS” FOR U.S. TALKS

    In total, the U.S. launched 75 precision-guided munitions, including more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles, and more than 125 military aircraft in the operation against the three nuclear sites, U.S. officials said.

    US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday warned Iran against retaliation and said both public and private messages had been sent to Iran “in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table.”

    Five previous rounds of indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran collapsed after a U.S. proposal at the end of May called for Iran to abandon uranium enrichment. It was rejected by Tehran, leading to Israel launching its attack on Iran after Trump’s 60-day deadline for talks had expired.

    Iran has repeatedly said from then on that it would not negotiate while at war.

    Even after Israel struck, Washington reached out to Iran to resume negotiations, including offering a meeting between the Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Istanbul, according to two European diplomats and an Iranian official.

    That was rebuffed by Iran, but Araqchi did continue direct contacts with US Special envoy Steve Witkoff, three diplomats told Reuters.

    One of the challenges in engaging with Iran, experts say, is that no-one can be sure of the extent of the damage to its nuclear program. With the IAEA severely restricted in its access to Iranian sites, it is unclear whether Tehran has hidden enrichment facilities.

    A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran’s uranium refined to up to 60%, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack there.

    Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said that – putting aside from the damage to its physical installations – Iran had thousands of scientists and technicians involved in the enrichment program, most of whom had survived the U.S. and Israeli attacks.
    “You can’t bomb knowledge,” said Acton.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why the US strikes on Iran are illegal and can set a troubling precedent

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

    After the United States bombed Iran’s three nuclear facilities on Sunday, US President Donald Trump said its objective was a “stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror”.

    US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this justification, saying:

    The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interest posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel.

    Is this a legitimate justification for a state to launch an attack on another?

    I believe, looking at the evidence, it is not.

    Was it self defence?

    Under the UN Charter, there are two ways in which a state can lawfully use force against another state:

    • the UN Security Council authorises force in exceptional circumstances to restore or maintain international peace and security under Chapter 7

    • the right of self defence when a state is attacked by another, as outlined in Article 51.

    On the first point, there was no UN Security Council authorisation for either Israel or the US to launch an attack on Iran to maintain international peace and security. The security council has long been concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and adopted a series of resolutions related to it. However, none of those resolutions authorised the use of military force.

    With regard to self defence, this right is activated if there is an armed attack against a nation. And there’s no evidence of any recent Iranian attacks on the US.

    There have been incidents involving attacks on US assets by Iranian-backed proxy groups in the region, such as the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump made reference to historical incidents the US believes the Iranians were responsible for over the years.

    However, none of these actions is directly related to the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    What about a preemptive strike?

    Another possible ground the US can use to mount a case for its bombardments is anticipatory or preemptive self defence.

    Both of these aspects of self defence are controversial. They have never been clearly endorsed by the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice.

    The US has sought to assert a fairly wide-ranging, robust interpretation of the right of self defence over many years, including both anticipatory self defence and preemptive self defence (which is particularly relevant in the Iran strikes).

    The major point of distinction between the two is whether a potential attack is imminent. Anticipatory self defence is in response to an attack on the brink of happening, such as when armed forces are massing on a border. Preemptive self defence is a step further removed, before a genuine threat materialises.

    Famously, in 2002, the administration of President George W. Bush adopted what is known as the “Bush doctrine” following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    This doctrine was framed around the notion of preemptive self defence justifying a strike on another nation. This was one of the grounds the US used to justify its military intervention of Iraq in 2003 – that Iraq’s alleged program of weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the US.

    However, this justification was widely discredited when no evidence of these weapons was found.

    Did Iran pose an imminent threat?

    With regard to Iran’s nuclear program, an imminent threat would require two things: Iran having nuclear weapons capability, and an intent to use them.

    On capability, there have been debates about Iran’s transparency with respect to its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    But, importantly, the IAEA is the body that has the authorisation and capability to make judgements about a nation’s nuclear program. And it said, at this point in time, Iran did not yet have nuclear weapons capability.

    As Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA told the BBC:

    […]whereas until the early 2000s there used to be […] a structured and systematic effort in the direction of a nuclear device, that is not the case now.

    Trump’s statement in which he referred to the US military operation against Iran’s “nuclear enrichment facilities” was particularly striking. There was no reference to weapons. So, even the language coming out of the White House does not make reference to Iran possessing weapons at this point in time.

    Trump’s address to the nation after the Iran strikes.

    Further, many states have nuclear weapons capability, but they’re not necessarily showing intent to use them.

    Iran has a long track record of aggressive rhetoric against Israel and the US. But the critical question here is whether this equates to an intent to strike.

    What about collective defence?

    Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, also arguing for the need for anticipatory or preemptive self defence to counter the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

    If Israel is exercising its right to self defence consistently with the UN Charter, as it claims, it can legitimately call on the assistance of its allies to mount what is known as “collective self defence” against an attack.

    On all the available evidence, there’s no doubt the Israelis and Americans coordinated with respect to the US strikes on June 22. At face value, this is a case of collective self defence.

    But, importantly, this right is only valid under international law if the original Israeli right to self defence is legitimate.

    And here, we encounter the same legal difficulties as we do with the US claim of self defence. Israel’s claim of an imminent attack from Iran is very dubious and contentious on the facts.



    Read more:
    Are Israel’s actions in Iran illegal? Could it be called self-defence? An international law expert explains

    A concerning precedent

    The overarching concern is these strikes can set a precedent. Other states can use this interpretation of the right of self defence to launch anticipatory or preemptive strikes against other nations any time they want.

    If this practice is allowed to go unchecked and is not subject to widespread condemnation, it can seen by the international community as an endorsement – that this type of conduct is legitimate.

    There are many states acquiring conventional weapons that could be seen to pose a potential threat to their neighbours or other states. And there are several states considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

    One example is Japan, where there has been some debate about nuclear weapons as a deterrence to future possible threats from China.

    So, how might Japan’s actions be seen by its neighbours – namely China and North Korea? And how might these countries respond in light of the precedent that’s been set by the US and Israel?

    Should Australia condemn the US strikes?

    Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong has come out in support for the US action, saying “we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon”. She hasn’t, however, addressed the legality of the US strikes.

    The Albanese government should be discussing this. There’s an expectation, in particular, on the part of Labor governments, given former leader Doc Evatt’s role in the creation of the UN Charter, that they show strong support for the rules-based international order.

    Labor governments were very critical of the way in which the Howard government engaged in the US-led invasion of Iraq, asserting there was no basis for it under international law.

    Accordingly, there’s an expectation that Labor governments should be holding all states accountable for egregious breaches of international law. And, when viewed through the lens of international law, there’s no other way you can characterise the US strikes on Iran.

    Donald Rothwell receives funding from Australian Research Council

    – ref. Why the US strikes on Iran are illegal and can set a troubling precedent – https://theconversation.com/why-the-us-strikes-on-iran-are-illegal-and-can-set-a-troubling-precedent-259542

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • Pakistan condemns Trump’s bombing of Iran – a day after nominating him for Peace Prize

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Pakistan condemned on Sunday the strikes ordered on its neighbour Iran by Donald Trump, a day after Islamabad had said it would nominate the U.S. President for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Pakistan on Sunday said Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities violated international law and that diplomacy was the only way to resolve the Iran crisis.

    “The unprecedented escalation of tension and violence, owing to ongoing aggression against Iran is deeply disturbing. Any further escalation of tensions will have severely damaging implications for the region and beyond,” Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

    Also on Sunday, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif telephoned Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and “conveyed Pakistan’s condemnation of the U.S. attacks,” a statement from the Pakistani leader said.

    Pakistan’s information minister and the foreign ministry did not respond to requests for comment on the apparent contradiction in the country’s positions over the weekend.

    In Pakistan’s biggest city, Karachi, thousands marched in protest against the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.

    A large American flag with a picture of Trump on it was placed on the road for demonstrators to walk over. The protesters shouted out chants against America, Israel and Pakistan’s regional enemy India.

    Pakistan on Saturday said it was nominating Trump as “a genuine peacemaker” for his role in bringing a four-day conflict with India to an end last month. It said he had “demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship”.

    (Reuters)

  • Iran weighs retaliation against U.S. for strikes on nuclear sites

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Iran and Israel traded air and missile strikes as the world braced on Monday for Tehran’s response to the U.S. attack on its nuclear sites and U.S. President Donald Trump raised the idea of regime change in the Islamic republic.

    Iran vowed to defend itself on Sunday, a day after the U.S. joined Israel in the biggest Western military action against the country since its 1979 Islamic Revolution, despite calls for restraint and a return to diplomacy from around the world.

    Commercial satellite imagery indicated the U.S. attack on Saturday on Iran’s subterranean Fordow nuclear plant severely damaged or destroyed the deeply buried site and the uranium-enriching centrifuges it housed, but the status of the site remained unconfirmed, experts said.

    In his latest social media comments on the U.S. strikes, Trump said “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran.”
    “The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!” he wrote on his Truth Social platform.

    Trump earlier called on Iran to forgo any retaliation and said the government “must now make peace” or “future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.”

    The U.S. launched 75 precision-guided munitions including bunker-buster bombs and more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles against three Iranian nuclear sites, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, told reporters.

    The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said no increases in off-site radiation levels had been reported after the U.S. strikes. Rafael Grossi, the agency’s director general, told CNN that it was not yet possible to assess the damage done underground.

    A senior Iranian source told Reuters that most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow had been moved elsewhere before the attack. Reuters could not immediately corroborate the claim.

    Tehran, which denies its nuclear programme is for anything other than peaceful purposes, sent a volley of missiles at Israel in the aftermath of the U.S. attack, wounding scores of people and destroying buildings in Tel Aviv.

    But it had not acted on its main threats of retaliation, to target U.S. bases or choke off oil shipments that pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

    Attempting to strangle Gulf oil supply by closing the strait could send global oil prices skyrocketing, derail the world economy and invite conflict with the U.S. Navy’s massive Fifth Fleet based in the Gulf.

    Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January. Brent crude futures rose $1.88 or 2.44% at $78.89 a barrel as of 1122 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude advanced $1.87 or 2.53% at $75.71.

    Iran’s parliament has approved a move to close the strait, which Iran shares with Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Iran’s Press TV said closing the strait would require approval from the Supreme National Security Council, a body led by an appointee of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    Caine said the U.S. military had increased protection of troops in the region, including in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. State Department issued a security alert for all U.S. citizens abroad, calling on them to “exercise increased caution.”

    The United States already has a sizeable force in the Middle East, with nearly 40,000 troops and warships that can shoot down enemy missiles.

    The Israeli military reported a missile launch from Iran in the early hours of Monday morning, saying it was intercepted by Israeli defences.

    Air raid sirens blared in Tel Aviv and other parts of central Israel. Iran has repeatedly targeted the Greater Tel Aviv – a metropolitan area of around 4 million people – the business and economic hub of Israel where there are also critical military assets.

    Iranian news agencies reported air defences were activated in central Tehran districts to counter “enemy targets”, and that Israeli air strikes hit Parchin, the location of a military complex southeast of the capital.

    REGIME CHANGE

    In a post to the Truth Social platform on Sunday, Trump raised the idea of regime change in Iran.

    “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” he wrote.

    Trump’s post came after officials in his administration, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, stressed they were not working to overthrow Iran’s government.

    Israeli officials, who began the hostilities with a surprise attack on Iran on June 13, have increasingly spoken of their ambition to topple the hardline Shi’ite Muslim clerical establishment.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi is expected to hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Monday. The Kremlin has a strategic partnership with Iran, but also close links with Israel.

    Speaking in Istanbul on Sunday, Araqchi said his country would consider all possible responses and there would be no return to diplomacy until it had retaliated.

    Russia’s foreign ministry condemned the U.S. attacks which it said had undermined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    “The risk of the conflict spreading in the Middle East, which is already gripped by multiple crises, has increased significantly,” it said.

    The U.N. Security Council met on Sunday to discuss the U.S. strikes as Russia, China and Pakistan proposed the 15-member body adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East.

    U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council the U.S. bombings in Iran marked a perilous turn in the region and urged a return to negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: REP LIEU STATEMENT ON TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S MILITARY ACTION IN IRAN

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ted Lieu (33 District of California)

    WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D-Los Angeles County) issued the following statement:

    “Our service members executed a dangerous mission and I’m relieved they have returned safely. The first priority is to ensure our service members and all Americans are safe from any potential retaliatory attacks by the Iranian regime and the terrorist organizations that they fund. 

    “While I strongly support the goal of preventing the Iranian regime from ever getting nuclear weapons, I believe military strikes ordered by President Trump on Iran need congressional authorization. From my first term in Congress until the present, I have consistently believed the Constitution means what it says: only Congress has the power to declare war. I publicly stated at the time that President Obama needed congressional authorization before striking Syria. My position that only Congress has the power to declare war has remained the same regardless of which party the President happens to belong to.

    “A world with fewer nuclear weapons is a safer one for everyone. The autocratic and theocratic Iranian regime—if it had nuclear weapons—could launch those weapons of mass destruction at U.S. military bases, other U.S. interests, and Israel. Preventing the Iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons has been a longstanding, bipartisan goal. 

    “There will be a bipartisan, classified briefing by the Administration this Tuesday. I urge the Administration to address what congressional authorization it relied on for the military strikes, if any. I also want the Administration to address many unanswered questions, such as if the strikes achieved their intended objectives, how the Administration intends to protect Americans and our service members from potential future attacks, and what the Administration’s plan is going forward.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Bean Hosts Tax Reform Roundtable in Duval County

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Aaron Bean Florida (4th District)

    WASHINGTON—This week, U.S. Congressman Aaron Bean (FL-04) hosted a roundtable discussion with members of the First Coast Manufacturers Association to discuss the impact of expiring tax cuts, industry challenges, and how the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) will provide real tax relief and drive economic growth in Northeast Florida. 

    After the roundtable, Congressman Bean said, “Northeast Florida manufacturers cannot afford the burden of higher taxes that would cripple growth and threaten jobs. Roundtable participants confirmed the success of the Trump tax cuts and their critical importance to their daily operations. During the roundtable, I heard directly from manufacturers about the challenges of finding workers, being competitive, accessing products, and the need for immediate relief. As the fight continues to preserve the Trump tax cuts, I’m taking their stories back to D.C. and will continue to advocate for policies that help our manufacturers expand, hire, and drive our economy forward.”

    BACKGROUND:

    The House has passed the One Big Beautiful Bill by a 215-214 vote, and now all eyes are on the Senate as President Trump urges swift approval before July 4th to deliver historic tax relief and economic growth for hardworking Americans. 

    For an overview of the One Big Beautiful Bill, click here.

     

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Bean Hosts Tax Reform Roundtable in Duval County

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Aaron Bean Florida (4th District)

    WASHINGTON—This week, U.S. Congressman Aaron Bean (FL-04) hosted a roundtable discussion with members of the First Coast Manufacturers Association to discuss the impact of expiring tax cuts, industry challenges, and how the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) will provide real tax relief and drive economic growth in Northeast Florida. 

    After the roundtable, Congressman Bean said, “Northeast Florida manufacturers cannot afford the burden of higher taxes that would cripple growth and threaten jobs. Roundtable participants confirmed the success of the Trump tax cuts and their critical importance to their daily operations. During the roundtable, I heard directly from manufacturers about the challenges of finding workers, being competitive, accessing products, and the need for immediate relief. As the fight continues to preserve the Trump tax cuts, I’m taking their stories back to D.C. and will continue to advocate for policies that help our manufacturers expand, hire, and drive our economy forward.”

    BACKGROUND:

    The House has passed the One Big Beautiful Bill by a 215-214 vote, and now all eyes are on the Senate as President Trump urges swift approval before July 4th to deliver historic tax relief and economic growth for hardworking Americans. 

    For an overview of the One Big Beautiful Bill, click here.

     

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for June 23, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 23, 2025.

    Illegal US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities came in spite of no evidence
    BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem Kia ora koutou, I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground. The US struck three of Iran’s nuclear facilities overnight, entering the illegal aggression on Iran with heavy airstrikes despite no

    My kids only want to eat processed foods. How can I get them eating a healthier and more varied diet?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Fuller, Clinical Trials Director, Department of Endocrinology, RPA Hospital, University of Sydney If it feels like your child’s diet consists entirely of breakfast cereal, chicken nuggets and snacks that’d outlast the apocalypse, you’re not alone. Processed foods are the go-to for many kids, and for some,

    Defence Force to send plane to assist New Zealanders stranded in Iran and Israel
    By Giles Dexter, RNZ News political reporter The Defence Force is sending a plane to the Middle East to assist any New Zealanders stranded in Iran or Israel. The C-130J Hercules, along with government personnel, will leave Auckland on Monday. Airspace is still closed in the region, but Defence Minister Judith Collins said the deployment

    Trump’s decision to bomb Iran exposes fissures in US politics
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney US President Donald Trump’s strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which he foreshadowed on and off for the past few days, has revealed a surprisingly broad middle ground in US politics, even as it has provoked

    Leaders in US-affiliated Pacific react to surprise strikes on Iran
    By Mark Rabago, RNZ Pacific Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas correspondent Leaders in the US-affliliated Pacific Islands have reacted to the US strikes on Iran. US president Donald Trump said Iran must now make peace or “we will go after” other targets in Iran, after US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said

    Global warming is changing cloud patterns. That means more global warming
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Jakob, Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Monash University Caleb Weiner / Unsplash At any given time, about two-thirds of Earth’s surface is covered by clouds. Overall, they make the planet much cooler than it would be without them. But

    NZ’s changing diet: Māori bread and jackfruit join other new foods in the country’s nutritional database
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick William Smith, Associate Investigator in Nutritional Science, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University Shutterstock/Alesia Bierliezova The latest update to the New Zealand food composition database, a comprehensive collection of nutrient data collated jointly by Plant & Food Research and the Ministry of Health, brings more

    How pregnant women are tested for gestational diabetes is changing. Here’s what this means for you
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexis Shub, Obstetrician & Maternal Fetal Medicine specialist, The University of Melbourne How Australian pregnant women are tested for gestational diabetes is set to change, with new national guidelines released today. Changes are expected to lead to fewer diagnoses in women at lower risk, reducing the burden

    Freak wind gusts made worse by climate change threaten airline passenger safety
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milton Speer, Visiting Fellow, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney Unexpected severe turbulence injured crew and passengers on a Qantas Boeing 737 during descent at Brisbane on May 4 2024. The subsequent Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation suggested the severity of the turbulence

    Labubu plushies aren’t just toys. They’re a brand new frontier for Chinese soft power
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ming Gao, Research Fellow of East Asia Studies, Lund University Katerina Elagina/Shutterstock One of the most sought-after items of 2025 isn’t a designer handbag or the latest tech gadget. It’s a plush elf with a snaggle-toothed grin. Labubu (拉布布) is a global sensation. From David Beckham and

    Pro-independence advocates urge MSG to elevate West Papua membership
    By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent Two international organisations are leading a call for the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) to elevate the membership status of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) at their upcoming summit in Honiara in September. The collective, led by International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP) and International Lawyers

    Starving Gaza civilians toll climbs at Israeli humanitarian ‘death traps’
    Pacific Media Watch BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem Kia ora koutou, I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground. Israeli forces killed over 200 Palestinians in Gaza over the last 48 hours, injuring over 1037. Countless

    NZ group slams Israeli ‘hoodwinking’ of US over nuclear strikes – Peters calls for talks
    Asia Pacific Report The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on New Zealanders to condemn the US bombing of Iran. PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal said in a statement that he hoped the New Zealand government would be critical of the US for its war escalation. “Israel has once again hoodwinked the United States into fighting

    The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel’s war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision. Early Sunday, US warplanes struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the

    What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US. Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment

    Muted response from Albanese government on US attack on Iran
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Albanese government has given a tepid response to the United States’ bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement from a government spokesperson, but there were no plans on Sunday afternoon for Anthony Albanese or

    What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran – and what might happen now
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US. Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: Iranian president warns US of retaliation after strikes on nuclear sites

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian attends a press conference in Tehran, Iran, on Sept. 16, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday that the United States must “receive the response to its aggression,” following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    Pezeshkian made the remarks during a phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron, according to a statement from his office. In response to Macron’s call for restraint, Pezeshkian said the United States must face consequences for its attacks on Iran.

    He described the U.S. strikes as a “clear symbol of its insincerity and the baselessness of its claims about favoring dialogue and seeking peace.”

    Despite this, Pezeshkian stressed Iran’s continued commitment to diplomacy with Europe, saying, “We have always announced our readiness for dialogue and interaction with Europe and have never abandoned the path of diplomacy, as we maintain that nobody would suffer any harm from dialogue.”

    Macron reiterated France’s willingness to pursue negotiations with Iran and said Paris would continue efforts to halt the conflict and restore stability, according to the statement.

    U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday announced on Truth Social that American forces had completed strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, namely Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

    The U.S. strikes followed Israeli attacks launched since June 13 on various targets in Iran, including nuclear and military sites, killing several senior commanders, nuclear scientists, and civilians.

    Iran has retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. As of Saturday, more than 400 people have been killed and over 3,500 wounded in Iran, according to the Iranian Health Ministry. In Israel, authorities reported 24 fatalities. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s decision to bomb Iran exposes fissures in US politics

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

    US President Donald Trump’s strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which he foreshadowed on and off for the past few days, has revealed a surprisingly broad middle ground in US politics, even as it has provoked controversy in the international community.

    Almost immediately after news of the US military action broke, John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, blasted out a statement of support, calling the attack the “correct move”.

    Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who spent decades in House Democratic Leadership roles, said the strike “was essential to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon”.

    Governor of Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro, a likely presidential candidate in 2028, gave a thoughtful evaluation of the attack, calling Iran’s nuclear weapons program “dangerous”.

    Other Democrats were more muted. Leading Senators, including Leader Chuck Schumer, complained about the lack of congressional authorisation and the administration’s failure to consult Congress before the strike, but didn’t specifically oppose the US action.

    In the US system, only Congress can declare war, but the president has broad power as commander-in-chief to respond to threats. Most defenders of presidential authority acknowledge his authority to act militarily – particularly when the US’s role is highly limited, such as in the Iran strike. Should US involvement deepen, the calls for a congressional role in authorising the war will become louder and more legitimate.

    Some on the far left, including Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, openly opposed the strike and even called for Trump’s impeachment. Ocasio-Cortez said:

    The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.

    On the Republican side, there has also not been unanimous support for the strike.

    Even within the president’s coalition, some isolationists have been opposed to any US strike on Iran. They rightly pointed out that Trump campaigned on ending wars, not starting them.

    Media personalities Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon openly urged the president not to strike Iran. Carlson’s interview on the issue with hawkish Republican Ted Cruz gathered huge attention on social media.

    Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence and a member of his cabinet, went so far as to make a video about the horrors of nuclear conflict.

    Trump’s reaction to Gabbard’s video was furious. He even suggested he might eliminate her office, which is charged with coordinating America’s many intelligence agencies.

    Trump also called Carlson, whose millions-strong following on X is a key component of Trump’s political base, “kooky” for opposing a strike on Iran. Trump later walked that back, saying Carlson had called to apologise, and that Carlson “is a nice guy”.

    In Congress, one notable Trump ally opposed the Iran attack. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the controversial congresswoman from Georgia, said:

    Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war […] This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.

    Trump’s decision has wide cross-party support

    It is certainly fair to look closely at Trump’s base and explore divisions and disagreements. However, it is highly likely that Trump’s dominant personality means he will keep the vast majority of his base together.

    More revealing about US politics is the support across the aisle for his Iran policy.

    Trump’s brash manner and divisive rhetoric make it difficult for Democrats to support him in any circumstance, but the US people’s disdain for Iran appears to be much stronger.

    In 1979, Iranian revolutionaries took 52 US diplomats hostage. The image of those captive hostages blindfolded and at the mercy of Iranian radicals is burned into older Americans’ brains.

    A generation later, Iran-backed militias killed more than 600 Americans in the war in Iraq. There are other sins Iran has committed against the US, included the attempted assassination of Trump. In this context, Trump’s policy is in the US mainstream.

    Why didn’t Trump consult Congress?

    It has been the standard practice of US presidents to brief the bipartisan leadership of Congress on key national security initiatives, such as a strikes on adversaries. While not a hard-and-fast rule, the practice can produce more bipartisan support for a president’s actions that he might otherwise have. It’s not unreasonable to think senior congressional Democrats might be more openly supportive of the Iran strike if they had been consulted in this manner.

    However, Trump and his administration did not do this, for a reason. There is little value in open bipartisanship in America today. Even though both parties are very close on Iran policy, neither wants that to be seen in public as cooperating across the aisle. Each party would much rather make the case to its base that it represents their interests and is not willing to compromise with the other party. Support from Democrats does not strengthen Trump, as his base is highly suspicious of the opposition party.

    The reverse is true for elected Democrats, including those in leadership. They will be more vulnerable from progressives in next year’s primary contests if they are seen as insufficiently resisting Trump. There is no Trump-like figure in their party to protect them from this base.

    In US politics today, nothing is more dangerous than agreeing with the other party. There is a premium value on publicly opposing your political adversaries, no matter what the issue. It makes for a foreign policy that appears more fractured than it actually is.

    Lester Munson receives funding from the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He is affiliated with the Republican Party.

    – ref. Trump’s decision to bomb Iran exposes fissures in US politics – https://theconversation.com/trumps-decision-to-bomb-iran-exposes-fissures-in-us-politics-259446

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Larsen Releases Statement on U.S. Strikes Against Iran

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Rick Larsen (2nd Congressional District Washington)

    Larsen Releases Statement on U.S. Strikes Against Iran

    Washington, D.C., June 22, 2025

    Today, Representative Rick Larsen released the following statement on the U.S. strikes against Iran:

    “The history of military conflict in the Middle East is that conflicts are difficult to contain and never seem to end. The Administration’s decision to unilaterally intervene in the Israel-Iran war by bombing Iran’s nuclear program sites will drag the United States deeper into the Middle East without a clear end game.

    “The United States must now focus on protecting U.S. forces in the region, coordinating with allies to share intelligence regarding Iranian or proxy retaliation, and seeking a return to diplomacy.

    “Diplomacy has always been the best way to impose long-term limits on the Iranian nuclear program, like the multilateral agreement President Obama achieved before Trump unwisely pulled out of it. It remains unclear how much damage the strike did to the Iranian nuclear program infrastructure.

    “Congress must reassert its authority and oversight over Trump’s military decisions and not be cowed into approving a bloated Pentagon budget using this attack as a pretext.

    “The women and men in the U.S. armed forces deserve our prayers for their continued safety.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –