OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement following a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granting the federal government’s motion for a stay pending appeal in Newsom v. Trump. The court granted the federal government’s motion, staying the district court’s temporary restraining order during the federal government’s appeal. The temporary restraining order blocked the Trump Administration’s use of the federalized California National Guard to patrol our communities and engage in other law enforcement activity by returning control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom.
“While it is disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government’s appeal, this case is far from over,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration far overreached its authority with its unprecedented and unlawful federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of military troops into our communities. As senior military leaders serving in administrations from JFK to Obama have affirmed, the use of the military on U.S. soil should be ‘rare, serious, and legally clear.’ That is not the case in Los Angeles where our state and local law enforcement officers responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence at otherwise peaceful protests and the President deliberately sought to create the very chaos and crises he claimed to be addressing. While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.”
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
NEW YORK, June 19 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order allowing TikTok to continue operating in the country for another 90 days until Sept. 17, 2025, giving his administration more time to discuss a possible sale of the app.
This is the third time the White House has extended the TikTok ban. He previously signed similar orders on January 20 and April 4, 2025.
Since joining the 2024 presidential race, Trump has amassed more than 15 million followers on TikTok, which is popular with American youth. In January, the politician said he had “warm feelings” for the app.
As local media note, a ban on TikTok in the US is becoming less and less likely in the foreseeable future: the president’s decrees to extend the app’s operation have never been challenged in court.
During his first term, Trump signed an executive order that effectively sought to ban TikTok in the United States unless its owner, Chinese company ByteDance, sold its business in the country to an American counterparty. The order was challenged in court and never went into effect.
In April 2024, then-US President Joseph Biden signed a law giving ByteDance 270 days to sell TikTok. The rationale was national security. Failure to comply would require app store operators like Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their platforms by January 19, 2025.
According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, about a third of Americans support a TikTok ban, about a third oppose it, and the same number were undecided. In March 2023, half of respondents supported a ban on the app.
TikTok currently has an audience of about 170 million users in the US. –0–
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
June 19, 2025
RFK Jr. cut hundreds of millions of dollars for bird flu, HIV vaccine development
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wrote to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., pressing him on his recent reckless decisions to slash funding for critical vaccine development. In May, the Trump Administration announced that it would cut off millions of dollars that the federal government had committed to the development of the critical bird flu vaccine, and HHS abruptly ended an over-$250 million program to develop an AIDS vaccine.
“This is a grievous mistake that threatens to leave the country unprepared for what experts fear might be the next pandemic – and there appears to be no rationale for this decision other than your ill-informed and dangerous war on vaccines,” wrote the Senators.
In January, HHS championed the development of new vaccines to make sure “Americans have the tools they need to stay safe.” Now, the RFK Jr.-led HHS is ripping those tools away — tools which would save lives and save billions in health care costs over time.
An HHS spokesperson indicated that the decision to cut funding for the bird flu vaccine was made following a “rigorous review.” Another senior HHS official claimed that the decision to slash funding for the HIV vaccine was made after a “review by N.I.H. (National Institutes of Health) leadership.” HHS has made neither review available to the American public.
“You have failed to justify either of these moves to (ruin) vaccine research,” continued the Senators. “This is just the latest example that calls into question your commitment to ‘radical transparency.’”
“The public has little reason to trust your judgment or your review of the science surrounding vaccines or any aspect of public health,” concluded the Senators.
The Administration also recently released its “Make America Healthy Again” report, containing numerous references and citations that were fully fabricated. RFK Jr. himself has long peddled anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and spread harmful misinformation.
The lawmakers requested copies of the “rigorous review” that resulted in the termination of funding for the bird flu vaccine and the “review by N.I.H. leadership” that prompted the termination of funding for AIDS vaccine research. The lawmakers also requested a detailed description of the process by which HHS decided to end these contracts, including whether it was based on a recommendation by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) officials.
-30-
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
June 19, 2025
[PEORIA, IL] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) today joined Peoria-area health care advocates, Medicaid recipients and their families to call out the Trump Administration and Republican’s dangerous, relentless attempts to slash Medicaid with their Big, Beautiful Betrayal. Duckworth spoke in support and defense of the millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid including pregnant women, children with disabilities as well as people in nursing homes—and demanded that Republicans put their constituents’ lives ahead of Trump’s ego by working with Democrats to protect the critical basic needs program. Photos from the press conference are available on Senator Duckworth’s website.
“Republicans told us in Project 2025 that they’d come for Medicaid—and this is one of the rare times the GOP is actually keeping its word,” Duckworth said. “Make no mistake: there’s no way to pay for Trump’s $4 trillion tax break for billionaires without putting it on the backs of Americans who are already struggling to pay the bills. As Republicansthreatened health care for 16 million Americans—including 3.4 million Illinoisans—to appease Trump and his billionaire buddies, I’ll keep working with Illinois health care advocates to protect and defend Medicaid.”
“In Illinois, Medicaid covers over half of all births—and in many rural areas, that number is even higher. For thousands of pregnant people, Medicaid is the difference between accessing prenatal care or going without it. The proposed cuts to Medicaid would jeopardize maternal health and endanger the lives of mothers and babies across our state,” said Chi Chi Okwu, Executive Director, EverThrive Illinois.
“Children and families—especially those with complex medical needs or in rural communities—already face so many barriers to care. The proposed changes to the Medicaid program would only widen the care gap for children,” said Michele Beekman, MD, FAAP, Secretary, Executive Committee of the Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“In Illinois, Medicaid is not just a program; it is a lifeline that embodies our commitment to compassion and justice, ensuring that our most vulnerable citizens, including those with disabilities, our children, and working families, have access to the healthcare and support they need to thrive. It is our duty to protect this essential safety net for the sake of our collective humanity,” said Samantha Alloway, Executive Director, The Arc of Illinois.
“Hospital leaders are doing everything they can to preserve access to care, protect jobs, and remain anchors in their communities. But make no mistake—Medicaid cuts erode that foundation. We need policies that invest in rural health, not undermine it,” said Tracy Warner, Executive Director, Illinois Critical Hospital Network.
Last month, Duckworth joined Caring Across Generations’ 24-hour Capitol Hill vigil to call out Donald Trump and Elon Musk for their heartless, relentless attempts to slash Medicaid funding.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.
The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.
“[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”
Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.
“Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”
Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.
Ensured good outcomes Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.
“I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.
“Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.
In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.
The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.
‘Beg forgiveness’ Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.
“[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.
“It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.
“What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”
Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.
Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.
The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.
“[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”
Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.
“Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”
Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.
Ensured good outcomes Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.
“I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.
“Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.
In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.
The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.
‘Beg forgiveness’ Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.
“[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.
“It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.
“What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”
Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.
Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic.
While considering a US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran’s supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him “an easy target”. He has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran.
Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program.
So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid?
Has Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ fully collapsed?
Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure.
This so-called “axis of resistance” includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran’s influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria before it was toppled last year.
These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement.
However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network.
Hezbollah — once Iran’s most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad’s regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region.
That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.
Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region’s only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region.
The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF’s more hardline factions, promised to do so:
If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation.
Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.
Will Iran’s regional and global allies step in?
Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal.
For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel’s actions in Gaza.
In a sign of Pakistan’s importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country’s army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour.
Pakistan’s leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran’s president “unwavering solidarity” in the “face of Israel’s unprovoked aggression”. And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will “think many times before taking on Pakistan”.
These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention.
Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war.
In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations.
These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation.
It’s unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US.
However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US.
Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability. This is due to Iran’s long-standing “Look East” policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy.
However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly.
Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad’s regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia’s closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn’t want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration.
China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.
Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic.
While considering a US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran’s supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him “an easy target”. He has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran.
Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program.
So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid?
Has Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ fully collapsed?
Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure.
This so-called “axis of resistance” includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran’s influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria before it was toppled last year.
These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement.
However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network.
Hezbollah — once Iran’s most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad’s regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region.
That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.
Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region’s only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region.
The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF’s more hardline factions, promised to do so:
If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation.
Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.
Will Iran’s regional and global allies step in?
Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal.
For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel’s actions in Gaza.
In a sign of Pakistan’s importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country’s army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour.
Pakistan’s leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran’s president “unwavering solidarity” in the “face of Israel’s unprovoked aggression”. And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will “think many times before taking on Pakistan”.
These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention.
Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war.
In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations.
These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation.
It’s unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US.
However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US.
Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability. This is due to Iran’s long-standing “Look East” policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy.
However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly.
Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad’s regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia’s closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn’t want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration.
China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.
Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
This photo taken on May 24, 2025 shows a view of the Harvard University campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the United States. [Photo/Xinhua]
China opposes politicizing education cooperation, and hopes the United States will act on President Trump’s remarks about welcoming Chinese students to study in America, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said on Thursday.
Spokesperson Guo Jiakun made the remarks in response to a related query at a daily news briefing, adding that China is following the developments.
China-U.S. education cooperation benefits both sides, Guo said.
“We hope the United States will act on President Trump’s remarks about welcoming Chinese students to study in America and effectively protect the lawful and legitimate rights and interests of Chinese students and scholars in the United States,” he said.
The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic.
Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling mid-air refuelling, bombs and an array of intelligence.
If successful they will destroy or, more likely, destabilise the uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz and possibly the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, causing them to vibrate and spin uncontrollably, generating centrifugal forces that could rupture containment systems.
Spinning at more than 50,000 rpm it wouldn’t take much of a shockwave from a blast or some other act of sabotage to do this.
There may be about half a tonne of enriched uranium and several tonnes of lower-grade material underground.
If a cascade of bunker-busting bombs like the US GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators got through, the heat generated would be in the hundreds, even thousands, of degrees Celsius. This would destroy the centrifuges, converting the uranium hexafluoride gas into a toxic aerosol, leading to serious radiological contamination over a wide area.
The head of the IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, warned repeatedly of the dangers over the past few days. How many people would be killed, contaminated or forced to evacuate should not have to be calculated — it should be avoided at all cost.
Divided opinions Some people think this attack is a very good idea; some think this is an act of madness by two rogue states.
On June 18, Israeli media were reporting that the US had rushed an aerial armada loaded with bunker busters to Israel while the US continued its sham denials of involvement in the war.
Analysts Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares warned this week of “Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims”. They point out that for some decades now Netanyahu has warned that Iran is weeks or even days away from having the bomb, begging successive presidents for permission to wage Judeo-Christian jihad.
In Donald Trump — the MAGA Peace Candidate — he finally got his green light.
The centrifugal forces destabilising the Iranian state The other — and possibly more significant — centrifugal force that has been unleashed is a hybrid attack on the Iranian state itself. The Americans, Israelis and their European allies hope to trigger regime change.
There are many Iranians inside and outside the country who would welcome such a development. Other Iranians suggest they should be careful of what they wish for, pointing to the human misery that follows, as night follows day, wherever post 9/11 America’s project to bring “democracy, goodness and niceness” leads. If you can’t quickly think of half a dozen examples, this must be your first visit to Planet Earth.
Iranian news presenter Sahar Emami during the Israeli attack on state television which killed three media workers . . . Killing journalists is both an Israeli speciality and a war crime. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Is regime change in Iran possible? So, are the Americans and Israelis on to something or not? This week prominent anti-regime writer Sohrab Ahmari added a caveat to his long-standing call for an end to the regime. Ahmari, an Iranian, who is the US editor of the geopolitical analysis platform UnHerd said: “The potential nightmare scenarios are as numerous as they are appalling: regime collapse that leads not to the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty and the ascent to the Peacock Throne of its chubby dauphin, Reza, but warlordism and ethno-sectarian warfare that drives millions of refugees into Europe.
“Or a Chinese intervention in favour of a crucial energy partner and anchor of the new Eurasian bloc led by Beijing . . . A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on the Persian Gulf monarchies.”
Despite these risks, there are indeed Iranians who are cheering for Uncle Bibi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu). Some have little sympathy for the Palestinians because their government poured millions into supporting Hamas and Hezbollah — money that could have eased hardship inside Iran, caused, it must be added, by both the US-imposed sanctions and the regime’s own mismanagement, some say corruption.
As I pointed out in an article The West’s War on Iran shortly after the Israelis launched the war: the regime appears to have a core support base of around 20 percent. This was true in 2018 when I last visited Iran and was still the case in the most recent polling I could find.
I quoted an Iranian contact who shortly after the attack told me they had scanned reactions inside Iran and found people were upset, angry and overwhelmingly supportive of the government at this critical moment. Like many, I suggested Iranians would — as typically happens when countries are attacked — rally round the flag. Shortly after the article was published this statement was challenged by other Iranians who dispute that there will be any “rallying to the flag” — as that is the flag of the Islamic Republic and a great many Iranians are sick to the back teeth of it.
Some others demur:
“The killing of at least 224 Iranians has once again significantly damaged Israel’s claim that it avoids targeting civilians,” Dr Shirin Saeidi, author of Women and the Islamic Republic, an associate professor of political science at the University of Arkansas, told The New Arab on June 16. “Israel’s illegal attack on the Iranian people will definitely not result in a popular uprising against the Iranian state. On the contrary, Iranians are coming together behind the Islamic Republic.”
To be honest, I can’t discern who is correct. In the last few of days I have also had contact with people inside Iran (all these contacts must, for obvious reasons, be anonymous). One of them welcomed the attack on the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps). I also got this message relayed to me from someone else in Iran as a response to my article:
“Some Iranians are pro-regime and have condemned Israeli attacks and want the government to respond strongly. Some Iranians are pro-Israel and happy that Israel has attacked and killed some of their murderers and want regime change, [but the] majority of Iranians dislike both sides.
They dislike the regime in Iran, and they are patriotic so they don’t want a foreign country like Israel invading them and killing people. They feel hopeless and defenceless as they know both sides have failed or will fail them.”
Calculating the incalculable: regime survival or collapse? Only a little over half of Iran is Persian. Minorities include Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Balochis, Turkmen, Armenians and one of the region’s few post-Nakba Jewish congregations outside of Israel today.
Mossad, MI6 and various branches of the US state have poured billions into opposition groups, including various monarchist factions, but from a distance they appear fragmented. The Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) armed opposition group has been an irritant but so far not a major disruptor.
The most effective terrorist attacks inside Iran have been launched by Israel, the US and the British — including the assassination of a string of Iranian peace negotiators, the leader of the political wing of Hamas, nuclear scientists and their families, and various regime figures.
How numerous the active strands of anti-regime elements are is hard to estimate. Equally hard to calculate is how many will move into open confrontation with the regime. Conversely, how unified, durable — or brittle — is the regime? How cohesive is the leadership of the IRGC and the Basij militias? Will they work effectively together in the trying times ahead? In particular, how successful has the CIA, MI6 and Mossad been at penetrating their structures and buying generals?
Both Iran’s nuclear programme and its government — in fact, the whole edifice and foundation of the Islamic Republic — is at the beginning of the greatest stress test of its existence. If the centrifugal forces prove too great, I can’t help but think of the words of William Butler Yeats:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Peace and prosperity to all the people of Iran. And let’s never forget the people of Palestine as they endure genocide.
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University
Segment on Trump’s threats against Iran’s leader. (BBC News)
The American military could certainly make an impact in any air campaign against Iran. The problem from a military standpoint, however, is that the U.S., based on its forces’ deployment, will almost certainly seek to keep its involvement limited to its air force to avoid another Iraq-like quagmire.
While doing so could almost certainly disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, it will likely fall short of Israel’s goal of regime change.
In fact, it could reinforce the Iranian government and draw the U.S. into a costly ground war.
The initial stated reason for Israel’s bombing campaign — Iran’s nuclear capabilities — appears specious at best.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued several times in the past, without evidence, that Iran is close to achieving a nuclear weapon. U.S. intelligence, however, have assessed that Iran is three years away from deploying a nuclear weapon.
Regardless of the veracity of the claims, Israel initiated the offensive and now requires American support.
Israel’s need for U.S. assistance rests on two circumstances:
While Israel succeeded in eliminating key figures from the Iranian military in its initial strikes, Iran’s response appears to have exceeded Israel’s expectations with their Arrow missile interceptors nearing depletion.
Israel’s air strikes can only achieve so much in disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Most analysts note that Israel’s bombings are only likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few months. This is due to the fact that Israeli missiles are incapable of penetrating the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which estimates place close to 300 feet underground.
The United States, however, possesses munitions that could damage, or even destroy, the Fordow facility. Most notably, the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (more commonly known as a bunker buster) has a penetration capability of 200 feet.
Multiple strikes by said munition would render Fordow inoperable, if not outright destroyed.
Romanticizing air power
The efficacy of air power has been vastly overrated in the popular media and various air forces of the world. Air power is great at disrupting an opponent, but has significant limitations in influencing the outcome of a war.
Specifically, air power is likely to prove an inadequate tool for one of the supposed Israeli and American objectives in the war: regime change. For air power to be effective at bringing about regime change, it needs to demoralize the Iranian people to the point that they’re willing to oppose their own government.
Early air enthusiasts believed that a population’s demoralization would be an inevitable consequence of aerial bombardment. Italian general Giulio Douhet, a prominent air power theorist, argued that air power was so mighty that it could destroy cities and demoralize an opponent into surrendering.
Douhet was correct on the first point. He was wrong on the second.
Recent history provides evidence. While considerableink has been spilled to demonstrate the efficacy of air power during the Second World War, close examination of the facts demonstrate that it had a minimal impact. In fact, Allied bombing of German cities in several instances created the opposite effect.
More recent bombing campaigns replicated this failure. The U.S. bombing of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War did not significantly damage North Vietnamese morale or war effort. NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999, likewise, rallied support for the unpopular Slobodan Milosevic due to its perceived injustice — and continues to evoke strong emotions to this day.
Iran’s political regime may be unpopular with many Iranians, but Israeli and potentially American bombing may shore up support for the Iranian government.
Nationalism is a potent force, particularly when people are under attack. Israel’s bombing of Iran will rally segments of the population to the government that would otherwise oppose it.
Few positive options
The limitations of air power to fuel significant political change in Iran should give Trump pause about intervening in the conflict.
Some American support, such as providing weapons, is a given due to the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But any realization of American and Israeli aspirations of a non-nuclear Iran and a new government will likely require ground forces.
Recent American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq show such a ground forces operation won’t lead to the swift victory that Trump desires, but could potentially stretch on for decades.
James Horncastle 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.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka ‘Democracy’). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export.
‘America’ became involved in Africa and the ‘Middle East’ very early in its history. There was the American–Algerian War (1785–1795); and the Barbary Wars (1801-1805,1815), featuring the heroic re-seizure and scuttling by fire of the USS Philadelphia in Tripoli Harbor in 1804. Then there was the reverse colonisation (aka ‘liberation’, ‘democratization’) of a small corner of Africa from 1822, leading to Liberia’s independence in 1862.
In the 1846, there was the small matter of the United States’ invasion of Mexico, resulting in the 1848 annexation of half of Mexico’s territory. ‘America’ brought Democracy to California, through annexation. And, in 1898, the United States appropriated Spain’s remaining worldwide empire, including the Philippines. And some other territories, including Hawaii. Upon his inauguration as the 47th President, Donald Trump explicitly invoked the memory of President William McKinley, America’s most notorious annexor of foreign territory.
And in 1889: “Three American warships then entered the Apia harbor and prepared to engage the three German warships found there. Before any shots were fired, a typhoon wrecked both the American and German ships.” After ten years of military/political stalemate – known as the Second Samoan Civil War – the Samoan ‘assets’ were split between the United States, the German Second Reich, and the United Kingdom. (The UK traded its share with Germany. Britain gave up all claims to Samoa and in return accepted the termination of German rights in Tonga, certain areas in the Solomon Islands, and Zanzibar.)
America’s imperial ‘burden’ in the last 125 years
Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden was written in 1899; “a poem about the Philippine–American War (1899–1902) that exhorts the United States to assume colonial control of the Filipino people and their country”.
America’s empire today is partly formal, though mostly informal, with various grades of informality. Indeed, the recent acknowledgement by the European Union that it has free-ridden on the United States for its defence indicates that the United States has had a significant degree of imperial control over Europe; hegemony manifesting as control over foreign policy.
The name ‘America’ itself is an imperial grab. America is the name for two continents, yet even the Canadians call the United States ‘America’, and its citizens ‘Americans’. American exceptionalism represents the weaponisation of democracy. Democracy is packaged as ‘Democracy’, a secular faith like ‘Communism’ or ‘Economic Liberalism’; a faith which must be proselytised, spread across the world as some kind of holy or secular crusade.
The remaining territories on the ‘autocratic’ ‘Dark Side’ – ie territories not subject to United States’ ‘protection’ – are mainly in continental Asia: especially West Asia (much of which is imperialistically called the ‘Middle East’, which extends to North Africa), North Asia, and East Asia. Though there is also very much a contest for South Asia; a contest, which if successful for the White Man’s force, will bring secular Hindi along with secular Judaism fully into the imperial fold of secular Christianity. (We note that the labels Hindu and Jew have long been name-tags which confuse and conflate religion with ethnicity. So it may soon be with Christianity; with top-tier Christians behaving very much as top-tier Jews behave today, as supremacist gift-givers and bomb-throwers.)
We should note that Catholic Christianity is now uneasy about this crusader culture, having been the main perpetrator of such culture nearly a millennium ago. And Orthodox Christianity is even more uneasy. In its North Asian (ie Russian) form, Orthodox Christianity – like Islam, and Chinese atheist capitalism – is a target of the present Christian Soldiers, not a collaborator. (The decline of the Christian East came with the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Ostensibly a western invasion force going to re-recover the ‘Holy Land’, instead that Crusade turned on Orthodox Christian Constantinople. The result was a weak Latin empire in the east; easy prey for the Ottoman forces which in 1453 created a Muslim empire in West Asia and Southeast Europe; an empire that lasted until 1918.)
The modern American-led crusading mentality represents a schism of Protestant Evangelism (which dates back in particular to the Calvinist side of the sixteenth century Reformation) and Secular Liberalism. Protestant Evangelism (increasingly known today as Christian Nationalism) is the imperial currency of today’s Republican Party, whereas Secular Liberalism is the imperial currency of today’s Democratic Party (although secular Neoliberalism is presently teaming up with the Evangelists). What both have in common is a will to impose themselves upon the rest of the world. And to produce and export lots of big guns, military hardware; making money, and making American jobs.
There are some strange bedfellows. As these two American socio-cultural Gods – Republican and Democrat; protagonist and antagonist, and vice versa – have battled out their Americanisms on a world stage, we have seen a significant posse of very rich devout Economic Liberals taking the side of the Christian Nationalists. So do a number of working-class and other disempowered former ballot-box ‘Leftists’, who wish to cast an anti-establishment vote but don’t know which way to turn. This dabbling with new right-radicalism (not unlike leftist dabbling in New Zealand in 1984 with the recently late Bob Jones’ New Zealand Party) follows the slow but comprehensive gutting of the Left-project that was so buoyant in the 1960s and 1970s.
The name Christian Nationalism is a misnomer; a better name is Christian Extranationalism. Rather than being an internationalist movement – internationalism is a liberal concept – this is a movement to perpetuate and extend the global domination of American culture, through imperial merchant capitalism. The United States was born out of British merchant capitalism (and New York out of Dutch merchant capitalism); its values and institutions reflect those of eighteenth-century western Europe. Just as the British exacted tribute from their American colonies; imperial America seeks to extract tribute through the ‘negotiation’ of asymmetric ‘deals’. Are we today witnessing an American Napoleon?
Money, Lies and God: by Katherine Stewart (2025)
Katherine Stewart this year has written about the new eclectic rightwing coalition in the United States that is coalescing under the name of Christian Nationalism. Though I’ve only read the introduction so far, the book has a real strength, in particular in identifying five components of this new new-right coalition: funders, thinkers, sergeants, infantry, power-players.
Of particular interest to me is the “out-sourced” relationship between the funders and the thinkers. While Stewart emphasises the ‘thinkers’ in the well-funded (and mostly conservative) ‘Think Tanks’, the real issue is that of ‘selective truth’, in the Darwinian sense of ‘selection’. Our ‘intellectual’ careerists compete to publish ‘truths’, and the truths which prevail will be the truths purchased by the ‘funders’, given that the funders have most of the funds.
This kind of relationship with truth is somewhat like a ‘court-of-law’, where commonly two ‘truths’ are subject to a contest in which one will be declared ‘the winner’. Not uncommonly, both rival ‘truths’ are at least partially false, and there may be other (possibly truer) truths that are not even ‘on the table’. Evidence represents a part of the court process, but by no means the whole of that process. The truth-relationship between the funders and thinkers is a corrupt form of the ‘law court’ model; the more corrupt the more wealth the conservative funders control. Academic careers – indeed scientists’ careers – are built on perpetuating narratives acceptable to their patrons.
While Money, Lies and God represents a prescient and useful analysis, ultimately it is part of the problem. It represents one side of the great American divide calling out the other side. The process of belligerent finger-pointing – between, in American language, ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ – is the bigger problem. Why bother talking about the world when you can talk about half of America instead? Indeed, too many American intellectuals talk and write about the United States as if America is the World; a kind of mental imperialism. (Another critique of American ‘Christian Nationalism’ can be found in a recent Upfront episode on Al Jazeera: The growing influence of Christian Nationalism and Christian Zionism in the United States.)
The problem of American imperialism belongs to both sides of the Divide; indeed, it is the Secular Liberalism of what has been exposed as the tone-deaf establishment – the Blinkens, Bidens and Nods – who represented the moral hypocrisy of America’s imperial democratic gift. (The sheer stupidity of the Biden re-election campaign is documented in Original Sin, 2025, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson.) That is, the belief that America created modern Democracy, and that those parts of the world – especially the ‘western’ world – have special rights accruing to them because they have been awarded the ‘tick of Democracy’. These countries – and only these countries – have the “right to defend themselves”, the right to make war (as ‘defence through attack’), and the “right to possess nuclear weapons”.
Contemporary American imperialism is mainly a ‘West on East’ phenomenon; Asia is the target. Ukraine and Anatolia (Türkiye) are border territories between Europe and Asia. Palestine, perhaps too, given its location on the Mediterranean Sea; though the Mediterranean littoral, from Istanbul to Morocco, is better understood as West Asia, not Europe. Iran is unambiguously a part of Asia. What we are seeing at present is nothing less than a Euro-American invasion of Asia. Imperialism. Nuclear imperialism; geopolitical imperialism; cultural imperialism. The gift that keeps on taking.
Note on the boundary between Europe and Asia
We should note that the core geopolitical boundary between Europe and Asia was set by Charlemagne in around the year 800; representing the border between the predominancies of Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity (harking back to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires). There are other important historic geopolitical boundaries in Eurasia, of course, such as the eastern and southern borders of Orthodox Christianity; and the eastern and northern borders of Islam-dominated territories. Indeed there is perpetual tension on the Pakistan-India border.
The principal medieval-era departure from that Charlemagne-set geopolitical boundary was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which peaked in territory in the fifteenth century. The first significant modern-era fudge of that geopolitical boundary was the West’s acquisition of Greece over the long 19th century (essentially 1820s to 1920s). The Great World War started in 1914 very much as an East-West border conflict in the Balkans of southeast Europe. After a week or two of fudging, the anglosphere took the Eastern side; siding with Russia over Austria and Germany.
Post World War Two, the next main geopolitical border fudges were the ‘settlements’ which placed a number of mainly Catholic East European countries into Russia’s orb; and which placed Türkiye (then Turkey) into NATO. The current twenty first century fudge is one of European expansion, placing a number of predominantly Orthodox territories – most notably Ukraine – firmly into the European political realm.
This longstanding geopolitical boundary contrasts with the widely-accepted geographic boundary; the latter – based more on physical geography and ethnicity than on faith-culture – passes along the Ural and Caucasus mountain chains, and through the lower Volga River, the Black Sea and the Bosporus/Dardanelle channels. Geopolitically, Russia, Belarus and Türkiye should be understood today to be Asian countries; indeed, the lower Dnieper River and line of the military trenches in Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk constitute the current geopolitical boundary between West and East; between Europe and Asia. And the lines within Eretz Israel – separating Israel from Palestine – also represent geopolitical borders; and American geopolitical encroachment on Asia.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to keep TikTok running in the United States for another 90 days, allowing his administration more time to negotiate a deal under the “sell-or-ban” law.
Thus, TikTok can continue functioning for its 170 million users in the United States.
This is the third time for Trump to extend the TikTok ban deadline. By Thursday’s executive order, the deadline will be further extended to September 17, 2025. Before then, Trump has extended the deadline twice each by 75 days on January 20 and April 4, 2025, respectively.
Trump has amassed more than 15 million followers on TikTok, an app popular among American youth owned by China’s ByteDance Ltd., since he joined presidential race in 2024. He said in January that he has a “warm spot for TikTok.”
As the extensions continue, it becomes less likely that TikTok will be banned in the United States any time soon, as the executive orders to keep TikTok alive have received some scrutiny but never faced a legal challenge in court, local media said.
In his first term, Trump signed an executive order effectively seeking to ban the app in the country unless ByteDance sold its U.S operations to an American company. The order did not go into effect amid legal challenges.
In April 2024, then-President Joe Biden signed a law giving ByteDance 270 days to sell TikTok, citing national security concerns. Under the law, failure to comply would require app store operators like Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their platforms starting Jan. 19, 2025.
According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, about one-third of Americans support a TikTok ban, down from 50 percent in March 2023; roughly one-third oppose a ban; and a similar percentage are not sure.
TikTok, originally known as Douyin in China, was launched in September 2016. It launched its international version, TikTok, later that year, but it wasn’t until August 2018 that TikTok merged with the lip-syncing app Musical.ly and became widely available in the United States.
Portraits of Iranian military generals and nuclear scientists killed in Israel’s June 13, 2025, attack are displayed on a sign as a plume of heavy smoke and fire rise from an oil refinery in southern TehranAtta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images
At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities.
Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel.
As two politicalscientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call “scientist targeting” from 1944 through 2025.
The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel’s recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations.
But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country’s desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality.
A policy with a long history
Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler’s ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs.
In our data set, we classified “targeting” as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs.
The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks.
Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries’ nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli’s home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project.
Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development.
The wrecked cars in which four of Iran’s nuclear scientists were assassinated in recent years are displayed on the grounds of a museum in Tehran in 2014. Scott Peterson/Getty Images
By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria’s Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities.
With its proxy “axis of resistance” defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward.
And in the months leading up to Israel’s recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump’s first term, the president withdrew the U.S. from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement – and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war.
Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear-nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site.
Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks’ purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical.
Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi – who was killed in the most recent attacks – survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory.
Israel’s logic in going after scientists
Why target nuclear scientists?
In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force.
Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state’s efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation.
Countries that target scientists therefore believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary’s nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as “a significant blow to the regime’s ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”
Despite Israel’s focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists.
Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs.
Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development.
Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age – and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond.
Rachel Whitlark is a nonresident senior fellow in the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.
Jenna Jordan 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.
OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement on a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Transportation’s imposition of unlawful immigration enforcement conditions on unrelated grant funding. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that imposing this new set of conditions across a range of grant programs is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the Trump Administration’s legal authority, and violates the Spending Clause.
“President Trump is threatening to withhold critical transportation funds unless states agree to carry out his inhumane and illogical immigration agenda for him. He is treating these funds – funds that go toward improving our roads and keeping our planes in the air – as a bargaining chip,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It’s immoral – and more importantly, illegal. I’m glad to see the District Court agrees, blocking the President’s latest attempt to circumvent the Constitution and coerce state and local governments into doing his bidding while we continue to make our case in court.”
BACKGROUND
Last month, Attorney General Bonta led a coalition of 20 states, alongside the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Maryland, in filing a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) grants. California receives billions in grant funding from DOT each year to support and maintain the roads, highways, railways, airways, and bridges that connect our communities and carry our residents to their workplaces and their homes. This includes funding to maintain and build highways. It also includes funding for transit systems in urban and rural communities across the state — including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries. Neither the purpose of these grants, nor their grant criteria, are in any way connected to immigration enforcement.
Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
Miranda Devine: FBI emails revealed to The Post expose Biden DOJ’s obsession with piling on Trump charges June 18, 2025 New York Post
Internal FBI emails reveal that rogue agents and prosecutors in the Biden DOJ were looking for ways to pile on new criminal charges against Donald Trump over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — this time over his involvement with the J6 prisoner choir, based on a single partisan news article.
The 2023 emails obtained by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and revealed exclusively to The Post are an example of the nitpicking malice of anti-Trump lawfare that tainted special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, during Joe Biden’s presidency.
“Can we do some work to nail down Trump’s role in this,” writes prosecutor JP Cooney to DOJ colleagues on March 8, 2023, in an email with the subject line “J6 Prisoner Choir/DJT” and an attached Forbes.com article titled “Trump Collaborates On Song With Jan. 6 Defendants.”
Cooney was a deputy special counsel who worked on both the Robert Mueller and Smith get-Trump special counsel investigations.
‘Agent Zero’
“According to this Forbes article, Trump recorded the Pledge of Allegiance at MAL [Mar a Lago] and Kash Patel [now FBI director] and Ed Henry [a former Fox News host] were also involved,” Cooney wrote in the email chain.
“The profits are routed to an LLC run by Henry, and proceeds are intended for families of incarcerated J6 defendants — but there is apparently a vetting process that excludes families of defendants who assaulted police officers.
“I asked Ahmed [likely prosecutor Ahmed Baset, who was fired earlier this month] to preserve this last night. I’ll talk to Maria/Erin and Julia about doing some follow up here to nail down Trump’s role.”
Cooney also instructed colleagues to look at starting “some process on Ed Henry’s LLC,” presumably a legal process such as a subpoena, search warrant or other court-authorized actions to gather evidence.
His email was forwarded to eight agents and DOJ staff, including notorious anti-Trump FBI Special Agent Walter Giardina, who responded two days later to say he was investigating the claims in the Forbes article about Trump and the J6 prisoner choir: “Esther and I are working on this today. We’re going to put together our findings at 2 and get something to you shortly after that.”
Giardina was “Agent Zero” in a lot of overzealous FBI actions involving Trump and his allies, including the investigation of Trump White House adviser Dr. Peter Navarro on contempt of Congress charges for refusing to appear before the House committee investigating the J6 riot.
It was Giardina’s FBI team that arrested Navarro as he was about to board a plane at Reagan National Airport in 2022, put him in leg irons and threw him in jail instead of simply issuing a summons for him to come to court, as the federal judge overseeing the case later said while criticizing the heavy-handedness.
Giardina was also significantly involved in Operation Crossfire Hurricane (the debunked Russia collusion investigation against Trump), Mueller’s investigation and cases involving Trump allies Dan Scavino and Roger Stone, as well as the Hillary Clinton emails case.
According to Grassley, Giardina was an “initial recipient of the Steele Dossier” and falsely claimed that the bogus Clinton campaign smear sheet against Trump was corroborated as “true.”
Giardina also “electronically wiped the laptop he was assigned while working for Special Counsel Mueller outside of established protocol for record preservation, raising the possibility that he destroyed government records.”
Whistleblown away
Whistleblowers have told Grassley that Giardina “openly stated his desire to investigate Trump, even if it meant false predication,” because of his hostility to the past and future president.
Grassley believes this email chain is another “clear example” of how the federal law enforcement apparatus was weaponized to try to “get Trump” at all costs.
“Instead of focusing on DOJ and FBI’s core law enforcement responsibilities,” Grassley told The Post, “partisan prosecutors and agents were surfing the web to find any shred of information they could use to spin another baseless case against Trump. Their actions are a disservice to Americans, who pay their salaries and depend on DOJ and FBI to keep them safe…”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)
Today, Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released the following statement:
160 years ago, today, Union troops reached Texas and delivered news of emancipation, marking the end of slavery in the United States and the first commemoration of Juneteenth. Today, we celebrate the freedom that Black Americans long fought for and the rich culture that grew from that great struggle.
That struggle roars on, with President Trump and MAGA extremists banning books about Black history, dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs and trying to detonate the citizenship protections of the 14th Amendment. This is an intentional effort to turn back the clock and tear our country apart.
House Democrats are in an all-hands-on-deck fight in the Congress, the Courts and communities across the country to push back against the malignant assault on our nation’s progress. We will always stand up for liberty and justice for all, not just the privileged few.
President Trump’s Iran statements ‘a deadly game of brinkmanship’, Lord Robertson tells London Conference News release jon.wallace
Fading trust in international rules-based order was a common point of discussion at annual conference with the theme ‘Rewriting the rules of the world’.
The Israel–Iran war and its implications for US foreign policy dominated Chatham House’s London Conference, the annual event that brings together policymakers, businesspeople, and experts on international affairs. Shifting global allegiances and power dynamics informed many of the discussions at the day-long gathering at the St. Pancras London, Autograph Collection hotel.
The two keynote speakers brought different perspectives on the Israel–Iran war. In the opening session former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson told Chatham House Director Bronwen Maddox:
—
Lord Robertson speaks at the London Conference.
‘One feature will be the…US president’s decision and we await to see what that’s going to be. And that will shift the places on the chess board quite dramatically, irrespective of the way it goes.
‘And it would appear at the moment that he is involved in a deadly game of brinkmanship, using the same skills that he had as a property developer. But this is not, you know, the plan for a condominium in the centre of New York, you know, this is the future stability of the world.’
Later, former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers said he believed that that US should bomb Iran’s deep nuclear sites, such as Fordow, that Israel could not reach, but that President Trump should not seek regime change.
‘I think the Americans should frankly get on with it and get it over with. A, it reduces the chance of the Iranians shipping out more and more kit from Fordow and other sites into places where they can store it safely, and they will certainly have those options, I think.
]]>
]]>
Recent news
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…
Jun 18, 2025
News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments:Dina El-Tawansy, of San Leandro, has been appointed Director of the California Department of Transportation. El-Tawansy has been District 4 Director at the California Department of…
Jun 18, 2025
News What you need to know: President Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles has already left crews fighting fires across the state short-staffed. SACRAMENTO – As multiple fires burn across the state today, a critical firefighting resource is short-staffed due…
June is Pride month. It is a time for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, Two-Spirit, intersex and other sexuality- and gender-diverse (LGBTQ+) communities to come together to celebrate identities, build communities and advocate for justice and equality.
His current term has been marked by a growing push to erase LGBTQ+ identities and limit queer expression in public life. Within this month of Pride, the Trump administration is planning to rename the USNS Harvey Milk naval ship, named after the late civil rights leader Harvey Milk.
But with fear also comes hope. Even as events like drag story times have become targets of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and protests, communities continue to organize, resist and affirm their right to public joy and visibility.
Our research, recently funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, explores drag story times with the hope to learn more about how drag story time leaders select books, and how these events can foster best practices in literacy and inclusive education.
At their core, drag story time events offer opportunities for child-centred literacy practices, such as dialogue and interactions throughout the “read aloud,” to encourage children to consider ideas and connect them as the story moves along.
A recent content analysis, by information sciences researcher Sarah Barriage and colleagues of 103 picture books read during drag story times in the U.S. found that few explicitly featured LGBTQ+ identities.
The lead characters were predominantly white, cisgender, heterosexual and able-bodied, with only seven per cent of books featuring trans, non-binary or intersex leads, and another seven per cent portraying same-sex or undefined relationships. While this represents an increase in LGBTQ+ representation compared to other studies of story time books and classroom libraries, the overall percentage remains low.
The findings of this study, while based on a small sample size, suggest that contrary to popular perception, drag story times, while featuring drag artists leading read-aloud sessions, are not consistently grounded in explicitly LGBTQ+ narratives.
This gap highlights the importance of thoughtfully selecting books that reflect a wider range of experiences, including LGBTQ+ main characters and stories. When children are shown diverse characters and stories, they begin to understand the world from multiple perspectives.
Researchers with expertise in children’s early literacy recommend that books for interactive read-alouds with children should reflect both the children’s communities and communities different from their own. Such books can spark meaningful conversations, encourage critical thinking and help cultivate empathy and respect for difference. This prepares young readers for life in a multicultural society and helps build a more inclusive and compassionate world view.
This may come from or be expressed through the euphoria or joy that comes from feeling aligned and authentic in your gender. The idea of “gender euphoria” comes from within the trans community as a way to push back against the narrow narrative that trans lives are defined only by dysphoria, trauma or discomfort.
Instead, gender euphoria highlights the positive side that come with expressing or affirming one’s gender identity. It can look different for everyone, from a quiet sense of contentment to a powerful feeling of joy.
Communities affirm their right to public joy and visibility. Drag Queen Barbada de Barbades, who has led story times, seen in Montréal. (Jennifer Ricard/Wikimedia), CC BY
Queer joy
Queer joy is also a feature of drag story time, and is more than just feeling good. it is about living fully, even in the face of adversity. It is an act of resistance to a world that often tells queer and trans people they should not exist. Children still die because of hateful anti-LGTBQ+ speech.
Together, gender euphoria and queer joy remind us that LGBTQ+ lives can be full of strength, creativity, connection and celebration.
When children see diversity reflective in creative, positive and affirming ways, such as through stories, role models and community engagement, they are more likely to feel a sense of belonging and develop confidence in expressing their own identities. In this way, drag story times contribute meaningfully to both individual well-being and broader efforts towards inclusion.
Best literacy and inclusion practices
As part of our research, we plan to attend drag story times to learn more about current practices in Nova Scotia. At the national level, we will talk with performers about their experiences, practices, support and training needs and their goals and motivations.
Then we’ll co-host a workshop with performers and educators to share knowledge and build skills that combine the artistry of drag with best practices in literacy and inclusive education.
Drag story times can be a healthy and supportive way for children to develop their sense of gender and sexuality identity, both within themselves and others.
Phillip Joy receives funding from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
Andrea Fraser receives funding from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
Conor Barker receives funding from the Social Studies and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).
Source: US Congressman Josh Brecheen (2nd District)
Today, Congressman Josh Brecheen (R-OK), Senator James Lankford (R-OK), and over 20 lawmakers sent a letter to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lee Zeldin inquiring about the full negative effects of the chemical abortion drug mifepristone, specifically on its potential contaminant effects on America’s water supply.
The Daily Wire wrote an exclusive report on the letter, which you can read here.
Congressman Josh Brecheen stated, “Abortion is one of the defining evils of our time. The Biden-Harris administration worked tirelessly to promote this evil, repeatedly lying about the ‘safety’ of the abortion pill and ignoring legitimate concerns about mifepristone’s widespread availability.
We recognize that the greatest tragedy of every abortion is the murder of the innocent. But we are also concerned that activist bureaucrats overlooked real public health risks posed by mifepristone in their crusade to expand abortion access.
With chemical abortion now the most common abortion method in America, the public deserves answers about how these potent hormone disruptors affect our water supply and contribute to our nation’s rising infertility rates.
We are grateful to work alongside an administration that recognizes the sanctity of life, as well as the importance of public health. We urge the EPA to use this opportunity to seriously review the contaminant effects of mifepristone.”
Senator James Lankford stated, “Federal regulators are rightfully eager to study the health effects of many chemicals in our water and septic systems, but they haven’t examined the environmental and public health risks of chemical abortion drugs like mifepristone in those same systems. Scientific research on the health effects of water sources where there are trace amounts of a chemical that is designed to end the life of a child in the womb should not be controversial.”
In support of the letter, Students for Life Action President Kristan Hawkins said, “Great leaders ask hard questions, making this letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) vital for consideration by the new Trump Administration. The Biden-Harris Administration recklessly used COVID to justify allowing No Test, Online Distribution of Chemical Abortion Pills, never checking whether the chemically tainted blood, placenta tissue, and human remains now flushed into our waterways by the hundreds of thousands was harming the environment. You don’t have to be pro-life to be concerned about endocrine disruptors in our waterways, potentially impacting our water safety, harming endangered species & our food supply, and perhaps even multiplying the rate of infertility. The Pro-Life Generation proudly stands with Rep. Josh Brecheen and Sen. James Lankford and all who joined this effort to make sure that America has crystal clear water by demanding that the EPA test what’s in the water.”
Brecheen and Lankford were joined by U.S. Senators Cynthia Lummis (WY), Bernie Moreno (OH), and Jim Banks (IN), along with Representatives Andy Harris (R-MD), Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Kat Cammack (R-FL), Chip Roy (R-TX), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Brandon Gill (R-X), Richard Hudson (R-NC), Michael Cloud (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Michael Guest (R-MS), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Eli Crane (R-AZ), Ben Cline (R-NC), Mary Miller (R-IL), Mark Harris (R-NC), Barry Moore (R-AL), Riley Moore (R-WV), Sheri Biggs (R-SC), and Eric Burlison (R-MO).
Background:
President Biden’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deregulated mifepristone, allowing pregnant women to receive this chemical abortion drug by mail delivery, without an in-person doctor visit. Since then, the number of abortions using mifepristone has grown dramatically, accounting for over 60% of all abortions in the United States. The increased use and disposal of mifepristone may increase levels of harmful chemicals in our water system due to the drug’s high levels of endocrine disruptors.