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

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Published

on

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Havana declares two days of mourning for the Cubans killed in US operation to abduct Nicolas Maduro.

Cuba has announced the death of 32 ⁠of its ​citizens during the United States military operation to abduct and detain Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Caracas.

Havana said on Sunday that there would be two days of mourning on ‌January 5 and ‌6 in ⁠honour of those killed and that ‌funeral arrangements would be announced.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The state-run Prensa Latina agency said the Cuban “fighters” were killed while “carrying out missions” on behalf of the country’s military, at the request of the Venezuelan government.

The agency said the slain Cubans “fell in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of the bombing of the facilities” after offering “fierce resistance”.

Advertisement

Cuba is a close ally of Venezuela’s government, and has sent military and police forces to assist in operations in the Latin American country for years.

Maduro and his wife have been flown to New York following the US operation to face prosecution on drug-related charges. The 63-year-old Venezuelan leader is due to appear in court on Monday.

He has previously denied criminal involvement.

Images of Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed by US forces have stunned Venezuelans.

Venezuelan Minister of Defence General Vladimir Padrino said on state television that the US attack killed soldiers, civilians and a “large part” of Maduro’s security detail “in cold blood”.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s armed forces have been activated to guarantee sovereignty, he said.

‘A lot of Cubans’ killed

US President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday, said that “there was a lot of death on the other side” during the raids.

He said that “a lot of Cubans” were killed and that there was “no death on our side”.

Trump went on to threaten Colombian President Gustavo Petro, saying that a US military operation in the country sounded “good” to him.

But he suggested that a US military intervention in Cuba is unlikely, because the island appears to be ready to fall on its own.

Advertisement

“Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know how they, if they can, hold that, but Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil,” Trump said.

“They’re not getting any of it. Cuba literally is ready to fall. And you have a lot of great Cuban Americans that are going to be very happy about this.”

The US attack on Venezuela marked the most controversial intervention in Latin America since the invasion of Panama 37 years ago.

The Trump administration has described Maduro’s abduction as a law-enforcement mission to force him to face US criminal charges filed in 2020, including “narco-terrorism” conspiracy.

But Trump also said that US oil companies needed “total access” to the country’s vast reserves and suggested that an influx of Venezuelan immigrants to the US also factored into the decision to abduct Maduro.

Advertisement

While many Western nations oppose Maduro, there were many calls for the US to respect international law, and questions arose over the legality of abducting a foreign head of state.

Left-leaning regional leaders, including those of Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, have largely denounced Maduro’s removal, while countries with right-wing governments, from Argentina to Ecuador, have largely welcomed it.

The United Nations Security Council plans to meet on Monday to discuss the attack. Russia and China, both major backers of Venezuela, have criticised the US.

Beijing on Sunday insisted that the safety of Maduro and his wife be a priority, and called on the US to “stop toppling the government of Venezuela”, calling the attack a “clear violation of international law“.

Moscow also said it was “extremely concerned” about the abduction of Maduro and his wife, and condemned what it called an “act of armed aggression” against Venezuela by the US.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Published

on

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Protesters rally outside the White House Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Washington, after the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a military operation.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

President Trump’s move to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has drawn praise inside the United States, especially from Republican leaders. But the invasion also faces significant skepticism, questions about legality, and full-throated opposition from some elected officials across the political spectrum.

Here’s a survey.

Some Republicans condemn, or question, Trump’s invasion

While most conservative lawmakers voiced support for Trump’s action, a small group of Republican House members and GOP Senators described the move as unlawful or misguided.

Advertisement

“If the President believes military action against Venezuela is needed, he should make the case and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, speaking on the House floor. “Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq or Syria?”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posting on social media, voiced skepticism that the true goal of Trump’s invasion was to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. She also described the military action as a violation of conservative “America First” principles.

“Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,” Greene posted on X. “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General, generally praised the military operation, but he also said the precedent of U.S. military intervention could embolden more aggressive action by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia.

Advertisement

“Freedom and rule of law were defended last night,” Bacon said on X, referring to the invasion of Venezuela, “but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”

At least three Republican Senators also voiced concern or skepticism about the invasion and its legal justification, while also celebrating the fall of Maduro.

“In this case, a leader who monopolized central power is removed in an action that monopolizes central power,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on the platform X. “Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorization for a reason—to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defense.”

GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both of Alaska, said Maduro’s ouster would make the United States and the world safer, but suggested the operation could turn into a quagmire for U.S. troops.

“Late last year, I voted to proceed to debate on two resolutions that would have terminated the escalation of U.S. military operations against Venezuela absent explicit authorization from Congress,” Murkowski wrote on the platform X. She added that she expects further briefings from Trump officials on the “legal basis for these operations.”

Advertisement

“The lessons learned from what took place after the United States deposed another Latin American indicted drug lord—Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989—could prove useful, as could the painful and difficult lessons learned after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Sullivan wrote on X.

Most Democrats condemn the invasion

Most Democratic lawmakers and elected officials also described Maduro as a dictator, but they generally condemned Trump’s action. At a press conference Saturday, New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani told reporters he phoned Trump and voiced opposition to the invasion.

“I called the President and spoke with him directly to register my opposition to this act and to make clear that it was an opposition based on being opposed to a pursuit of regime change, to the violation of federal and international law,” Mamdani said.

Democratic minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York accused Trump of acting in bad faith and violating the U.S. Constitution. “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said in a post on X. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

According to Schumer, the Trump administration assured him “three separate times that it was not pursuing regime change or or military action without congressional authorization.”

Advertisement

California’s Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, a frequent Trump critic, posted a series of comments on X describing Saturday’s military action and Trump’s proposed U.S. occupation of Venezuela as potentially disastrous.

“Acting without Congressional approval or the buy-in of the public, Trump risks plunging a hemisphere into chaos and has broken his promise to end wars instead of starting them,” Schiff wrote.

“Donald Trump has once again shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a video posted on social media, where he described the U.S. invasion as “imperialism.”

“This is the horrific logic of force that Putin used to justify his brutal attack on Ukraine,” Sanders said.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, also spoke harshly of the military strike, describing it as an effort by Trump to distract attention from domestic troubles in the United States.

“It’s not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn’t have pardoned one of the largest narco traffickers in the world last month,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to Trump’s decision to free former Honduran President Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted in the U.S. of helping smuggle more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.

Advertisement

“It’s about oil and regime change. And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn’t. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs,” Ocasio-Cortez added on X.

Continue Reading

News

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Published

on

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro during a US military operation in Venezuela, the command of the South American country has fallen into the hands of Executive Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.

That is what Venezuela’s constitution outlines in its different scenarios anticipating a president’s absence. Under Articles 233 and 234, whether the absence is temporary or absolute, the vice president takes over the presidential duties.

Rodríguez – also minister for both finance and oil – stepped into the role on Saturday afternoon. Hours after the capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, she chaired a National Defense Council session, surrounded by other ministers and senior officials, and demanded the couple’s “immediate release” while condemning the US military operation.

Standing before the Venezuelan flag, Rodríguez said the early-morning operation represents a blatant violation of international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. She added that the action must be rejected by Venezuelans and condemned by governments across Latin America.

“We call on the peoples of the great homeland to remain united, because what was done to Venezuela can be done to anyone. That brutal use of force to bend the will of the people can be carried out against any country,” she told the council in an address broadcast by state television channel VTV.

Advertisement

Rodríguez, 56, is from Caracas and studied law at the Central University of Venezuela.

She has spent more than two decades as one of the leading figures of chavismo, the political movement founded by President Hugo Chávez and led by Maduro since Chávez’s death in 2013.

Alongside her brother Jorge Rodríguez, the current president of the National Assembly, she has held various positions of power since the Chávez era. She served as minister of communication and information from 2013 to 2014 and later became foreign minister from 2014 to 2017. In that role, she defended Maduro’s government against international criticism, including allegations of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses in the country.

As foreign minister, Rodríguez represented Venezuela at forums such as the United Nations, where she accused other governments of seeking to undermine her country.

In 2017, Rodríguez became president of the Constituent National Assembly that expanded the government’s powers after the opposition won the 2015 legislative elections. In 2018, Maduro appointed her vice president for his second term. She retained the post during his third presidential term, which began on January 10, 2025, following the controversial July 28, 2024, elections. Until the president’s capture, she served as Venezuela’s chief economic authority and minister of petroleum.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s opposition maintains that the 2024 elections were fraudulent and that Maduro is not a legitimately elected president. They insist that the true winner was former ambassador Edmundo González Urrutia, a position supported by some governments in the region.

José Manuel Romano, a constitutional lawyer and political analyst, told CNN that the positions Rodríguez has held show she is a “very prominent” figure within the Venezuelan government and someone who enjoys the president’s “full trust.”

“The executive vice president of the republic is a highly effective operator, a woman with strong leadership skills for managing teams,” Romano said.

“She is very results-oriented and has significant influence over the entire government apparatus, including the Ministry of Defense. That is very important to note in the current circumstances,” he added.

On the path to an understanding with the US?

Hours after Maduro’s capture, and before Rodríguez addressed the National Defense Council, US President Donald Trump said at a press conference that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with the vice president. According to Trump, she appeared willing to work with Washington on a new phase for Venezuela.

Advertisement

“She had a conversation with Marco. She said, ‘We’re going to do whatever you need.’ I think she was quite courteous. We’re going to do this right,” Trump said.

Trump’s remarks, however, surprised some analysts, who believe Rodríguez is unlikely to make concessions to the United States.

“She is not a moderate alternative to Maduro. She has been one of the most powerful and hard-line figures in the entire system,” Imdat Oner, a policy analyst at the Jack D. Gordon Institute and a former Turkish diplomat based in Venezuela, told CNN.

“Her rise to power appears to be the result of some kind of understanding between the United States and key actors preparing for a post-Maduro scenario. In that context, she would essentially serve as a caretaker until a democratically elected leader takes office,” the analyst added.

In her first messages following Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez showed no signs of backing down and, without referencing Trump’s statements, closed the door to any potential cooperation with the United States.

Advertisement

Earlier in the morning, during a phone interview with VTV, Rodríguez said the whereabouts of Maduro and Flores were unknown and demanded proof that they were alive. Later in the afternoon, during the National Defense Council session, she escalated her rhetoric, condemned the US operation and, despite the circumstances, insisted that Maduro remains in charge of Venezuela.

“There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros,” said Rodríguez — now, by force of events, the most visible face of the government.

Reuters news agency contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending