Connect with us

News

Relief pervades Tehran after limited Israeli strike

Published

on

Relief pervades Tehran after limited Israeli strike

After Iran fired a barrage of drones and missiles towards Israel a week ago, 70-year-old Hengameh removed the mirrors from her walls and urged family members to stay away from windows for fear of retaliatory strikes.

The Tehran resident, who lived through her country’s 1980s war with Iraq, said: “I am haunted by thoughts of getting stuck in a tall apartment building without water, electricity or food, if Israel attacks.” But following Israel’s limited retaliation on Friday, Hengameh has relaxed. “What a relief that it all ended that way. It all probably was meant to scare people,” she said.

Hengameh was not the only Iranian exuding relief after Israel’s muted response on Friday to Tehran’s assault on the Jewish state. The explosions near the central city of Isfahan came after an Iranian barrage of more than 300 drones and missiles last weekend, which in turn followed a strike on the Islamic republic’s consulate in Syria, blamed on Israel, early this month that killed seven Revolutionary Guards officers.

The exchange has brought a decades-long covert war into the open, and set the crowded streets, cafés, grocery stores and subways of the Iranian capital abuzz with anxious conversation about whether a full-scale conflict could follow.

Mohammad, 30, a videographer and fervent supporter of the Islamic republic, said of Israel’s Friday attack: “The strike carries the hallmark of similar sabotage attacks we have seen in the past. I believe [Israel] were only aiming at some kind of psy-war. This cannot even be considered a response.”

Advertisement

In an exultant tone, he added: “This was nothing. Look at all those jokes people are making [online].” Social media platforms were fizzing with humour and memes. “Do you know why Israel attacked so late at night? Because its quadcopters had trouble locating the address in Isfahan,” one Instagram post said.

Online and even on state television news, Iranians circulated a post on social media site X by Israel’s far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who on Friday commented on his country’s latest strike on its arch-enemy with the single word: “Weak”.

People shopping for food in Tehran last week © Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Taghi Azad Armaki, an Iranian sociologist, said the conflict was exposing a generation gap. The shadow of Iraq’s devastating invasion of Iran in 1980, and eight years of war that followed, has hung over Iran’s leadership since, as well as over Iranians old enough to recall that time.

“The older generation knows war through its destructive force,” Azad Armaki said. “To the new generation with a different sociocultural background, war is nothing but a fantasy they’ve experienced through computer games.” He argued that the developing conflict was essentially “a political confrontation. A kind of war that is being fought through the media, rather than in real life”.

After decades of proxy conflict between Iranian-backed militant groups in the region and US and Israeli forces, the latest exchanges raised fears of a regional war against the backdrop of the six-month conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza strip. Carefully orchestrated strikes have punctuated intense diplomatic activity trying to prevent the conflict from escalating out of control.

Advertisement

Following the latest strike by Israel near Isfahan, Iranians were growing in confidence. Hours afterwards, footage circulated online of crowds on the banks of the Zayandeh River, a popular picnic spot in Isfahan, singing a patriotic song. State television interviewed local residents in Isfahan who jokingly called the strike “fireworks”.

Soldiers firing artillery shells
The Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s has cast a shadow over Iranians who lived through that conflict © AFP/Getty Images

Iran’s government said little on the subject of the strikes, a relative silence seen by some onlookers as a desire to defuse tensions. Two senior army commanders played down Israel’s latest attack as a minor incident, saying the country’s air defences were in a state of readiness and had quickly reacted to destroy the “suspicious” airborne objects.

President Ebrahim Raisi did not bring up the latest Israeli strike in a televised speech on Friday, but he lauded Iran’s attack on Israel last week for rallying people of various political tendencies around the flag.

Naeem, 28, a tour guide, said Iran’s barrage had been a wise move. “Without the attack, the possibility of a war erupting would have been greater. Israel violated our sovereignty and it deserved the blowback.”

Yet at the same time he evoked deeper discontent, contrasting the force of Iran’s assault on Israel with what he characterised as domestic disarray.

Since then US president Donald Trump in 2018 abandoned the nuclear deal Iran signed with world powers and imposed crippling sanctions, the country has endured deep economic stress. Untamed inflation and a weakening national currency are at the forefront of many Iranians’ concerns, and have contributed to waves of dissent.

Advertisement

Naeem said: “Thankfully in the military field, we are powerful enough to shatter the enemy’s invincibility. But why couldn’t we achieve the same in, say, the car industry or medicine? This system has failed to tackle all problems from economic hardship, to massive corruption, to [an] unstoppable brain drain, while highly unqualified individuals are occupying big offices.”

Government propaganda billboards and banners in Tehran have over the past week displayed themes ranging from Iran’s missile prowess to excerpts from US media such as “ABC News: Five ballistic missiles hit the Nevatim air base” and “NYT: Iran’s strikes on Israel open a dangerous new chapter for old rivals”.

Cars move past a building with a banner depicting missiles and drones flying past a torn Israeli flag on April 14
A banner on a building in Tehran depicting missiles and drones flying past a torn Israeli flag © Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images

Yet authorities also betrayed some insecurity. On the day of Iran’s missile barrage towards Israel, police forces enforcing mandatory headscarf wearing for women made a sudden reappearance in Tehran after an absence of more than a year. Some saw the enforcement of hijab rules as simply a means of justifying the visible presence of forces patrolling the streets.

“This was merely a pretext to deploy additional security and police forces in the streets ahead of the attack to ensure domestic stability,” an analyst said.

Nina, a 38-year-old musician, said of the Iranian government: “All these guys know is how to pull the country into conflicts. This was a bad mistake . . . The economy is in bad shape. We are under sanctions. The environment is sick. Pollution is killing us. And they are treating women on the streets like that. Getting into a war is the last thing we need right now.”

Ahead of the latest Israeli strike on Iran, some threats emanating from Tehran hinted at the possibility of producing nuclear weapons. Iran has faced western sanctions over its nuclear programme and in recent years it has enriched uranium close to weapons-grade, though it maintains the programme is purely civilian.

Advertisement

On Wednesday a senior figure in the Revolutionary Guards warned Israel that Iran was likely to review its nuclear stance if its atomic facilities were threatened.

Mohammad, the videographer, was sceptical that nuclear weapons would help the Islamic republic, however. “You may be able to use it as leverage to deflect threats if you are cornered,” he said. “But it does not keep war at bay. In the kind of deterrence Iran is building right now, there is no need for a nuclear bomb.”

Azad Armaki, the sociologist, said those hailing Iran’s strike on Israel, and those chanting against the country entering a war, shared a similar concern.

“Their message is the same: Iran must be protected,” he said. “This military confrontation has revived a collective devotion to the nation’s history, homeland and identity . . . It is no longer about the greater Islamic nation or civilisation, but it is about a love for Iran.”

Advertisement

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading

News

Who is John Phelan, the US Navy Secretary fired by Pete Hegseth?

Published

on

Who is John Phelan, the US Navy Secretary fired by Pete Hegseth?

The firing of US Navy Secretary John Phelan is the latest in a shakeup of the American military during the war on Iran, now in its eighth week.

The Pentagon said Phelan would leave office immediately.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy,” said chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell. “We wish him well in his future endeavours”.

His firing comes at a critical moment, with US naval forces enforcing a blockade on Iranian ports and ships, and maintaining a heavy presence around the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas passes during peacetime.

Although the Pentagon gave no official reason for the dismissal, reports indicate the decision was linked to internal disputes, including tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Advertisement

Phelan’s removal is part of a broader pattern of dismissals and restructuring within the US military under President Donald Trump’s administration – including during the current war.

So, who is John Phelan, and what impact could his firing have on US military strategy?

Who is John Phelan?

As the US Navy’s top civilian official, Phelan had various responsibilities, including overseeing recruiting, mobilising and organising, as well as construction and repair of ships and military equipment.

He was appointed in 2024 as a political ally of Trump, despite having no prior military or defence leadership experience.

Before entering government, Phelan was a businessman and investment executive, as well as a major Republican donor and fundraiser — a background that is fairly common among Trump appointees and advisers. The US president’s two top diplomatic negotiators, for instance, are Steve Witkoff — a real estate businessman with no prior diplomatic experience – and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Advertisement

According to the Reuters news agency, Phelan’s tenure quickly became controversial. He faced criticism for moving too slowly on shipbuilding reforms and for strained relationships with key Pentagon figures, including Hegseth and his deputy, Steve Feinberg.

rump with U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General Michael Borgschulte and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan (R) before the game between the Navy Midshipmen and the Army West Point Black Knights at M&T Bank Stadium [File: Tommy Gilligan/Imagn Images/Reuters]

In addition, Phelan was reportedly under an ethics investigation, which may have weakened his standing in the administration.

Navy Undersecretary Hung Cao, who was also reported to have a difficult relationship with Phelan, has become acting secretary. Fifty-four-year-old Cao is a 25-year Navy veteran who previously ran as a Republican candidate for the US Senate and House of Representatives in 2022 and 2024 respectively, but was unsuccessful on both occasions.

Democrats have criticised Phelan’s removal, calling it “troubling”.

“I am concerned it is yet another example of the instability and dysfunction that have come to define the Department of Defense under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth,” said Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Advertisement

Who else has the Trump administration fired since the war with Iran began?

Phelan’s removal is the latest in a series of senior military leaders being fired or are leaving during the US-Israeli war on Iran, in addition to others since Trump was re-elected.

Among the most notable dismissals was Army Chief of Staff General Randy A. George, in the first week of April. George was appointed in 2023 under former US President Joe Biden.

According to reports, Hegseth also fired the head of the Army’s Transformation and Training Command, a unit concerned with modernising the army, and the Army’s chief of chaplains. The Pentagon has not confirmed their dismissal.

Why is Phelan’s dismissal significant?

The 62-year-old’s removal comes during a fragile ceasefire with Iran, as the ⁠⁠US continues to move more naval assets into the region.

The Navy is central to enforcing Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports to restrict Iran’s oil exports and apply economic pressure on Tehran, as the US president looks eager to wrap up the war, which is deeply unpopular to many Americans.

Advertisement

However, there are no indications that Trump is willing to end the blockade or other naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz, as negotiations between Washington and Tehran have come to a standstill.

Tensions have escalated in recent days after the US military seized an Iranian container ship. The US claimed it was attempting to sail from the Arabian Sea through the Strait of Hormuz to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.

Tehran responded by describing the attack and hijack as an act of “piracy”.

Iran has since captured two cargo ships and fired at another.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Not a Deal-Breaker: White House Downplays Iranian Action Near the Strait

Published

on

Not a Deal-Breaker: White House Downplays Iranian Action Near the Strait

Just two weeks ago, President Trump threatened to wipe out Iran’s civilization if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz. Days later, he said any Iranian “who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!”

Yet on Wednesday, after Iran seized two ships near the Strait of Hormuz, the White House was quick to argue the action was not a deal breaker for potential peace negotiations.

“These were not U.S. ships,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Fox News. “These were not Israeli ships.” Therefore, she explained, the Iranians had not violated a cease-fire with the United States that Mr. Trump has extended indefinitely.

She cautioned the news media against “blowing this out of proportion.”

The surprisingly tolerant tone from the White House suggests Mr. Trump is not eager to reignite a war that he started alongside Israel on Feb. 28 — a war that has proved unpopular with Americans and has gone on longer than he initially estimated.

Advertisement

The president on Tuesday extended a cease-fire between the United States and Iran that had been set to expire within hours, saying he wanted to give Tehran a chance to come up with a new proposal to end the war.

The American military has displayed its overwhelming might during the war, successfully striking thousands of targets. But it remains unclear whether Mr. Trump will accomplish the political objectives of the war.

The Iranian regime, even after its top leaders were killed, is still intact. Iran has not agreed to Mr. Trump’s demands to turn over its nuclear capabilities to the United States or significantly curtail them. And the Strait of Hormuz, a key passageway for world commerce that was open before the war, remains closed.

Nevertheless, the White House has repeatedly highlighted the military successes on the battlefield as evidence it is winning the war.

“We have completely confused and obliterated their regime,” Ms. Leavitt said on Fox Wednesday. “They are in a very weak position thanks to the actions taken by President Trump and our great United States armed forces, and so we will continue this important mission on our own.”

Advertisement

The oscillation between threats and a more conciliatory tone has long been one of Mr. Trump’s signature negotiating strategies.

Potential peace talks between the two countries are on hold. Vice President JD Vance had been poised to fly to Islamabad for negotiations. But the trip was postponed until Iran can “come up with a unified proposal,” Mr. Trump said.

The United States recently transmitted a written proposal to the Iranians intended to establish base-line points of agreement that could frame more detailed negotiations. The document covers a broad range of issues, but the core sticking points are the same ones that have bedeviled Western negotiators for more than a decade: the scope of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and the fate of its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Mr. Trump has not spoken publicly about the cease-fire, other than on social media. On Wednesday, he also posted about topics including “my Apprentice Juggernaut” — a reference to his former television show; the Virginia elections, which he called “rigged”; and a new book about Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending