Politics
‘A Day of Love’: How Trump Inverted the Violent History of Jan. 6
In two weeks, Donald J. Trump is to emerge from an arched portal of the United States Capitol to once again take the presidential oath of office. As the Inauguration Day ritual conveying the peaceful transfer of power unfolds, he will stand where the worst of the mayhem of Jan. 6, 2021, took place, largely in his name.
Directly behind Mr. Trump will be the metal-and-glass doors where protesters, inflamed by his lie that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, stormed the Capitol with clubs, chemical irritants and other weapons. To his left, the spot where roaring rioters and outnumbered police officers fought hand to hand. To his right, where the prostrate body of a dying woman was jostled in the bloody fray.
And before him, a dozen marble steps descending to a lectern adorned with the presidential seal. The same steps where, four years earlier, Trump flags were waved above the frenzied crowd and wielded like spears; where an officer was dragged facedown to be beaten with an American flag on a pole and another was pulled into the scrum to be kicked and stomped.
In the wake of the attack on the Capitol, Mr. Trump’s volatile political career seemed over, his incendiary words before the riot rattling the leaders of his own Republican Party. Myriad factors explain his stunning resurrection, but not least of them is how effectively he and his loyalists have laundered the history of Jan. 6, turning a political nightmare into a political asset.
What began as a strained attempt to absolve Mr. Trump of responsibility for Jan. 6 gradually took hold, as his allies in Congress and the media played down the attack and redirected blame to left-wing plants, Democrats and even the government. Violent rioters — prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned — somehow became patriotic martyrs.
This inverted interpretation defied what the country had watched unfold, but it neatly fit the persecution narrative that binds Mr. Trump to many of his faithful. Once he committed to running again for president, he doubled down on flipping the script about the riot and its blowback, including a congressional inquiry and two criminal indictments against him, as part of an orchestrated victimization.
That day was an American calamity. Lawmakers huddled for safety. Vice President Mike Pence eluded a mob shouting that he should be hanged. Several people died during and after the riot, including one protester by gunshot and four police officers by suicide, and more than 140 officers were injured in a protracted melee that nearly upended what should have been the routine certification of the electoral victory of Mr. Trump’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr.
But with his return to office, Mr. Trump now has the platform to further rinse and spin the Capitol attack into what he has called “a day of love.” He has vowed to pardon rioters in the first hour of his new administration, while his congressional supporters are pushing for criminal charges against those who investigated his actions on that chaotic day.
When asked about the reframing of the Capitol riot, and whether Mr. Trump accepts any responsibility for what unfolded on Jan. 6, his spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, instead referred in a statement to the “political losers” who tried to derail his career and asserted that “the mainstream media still refuses to report the truth about what happened that day.” She added, “The American people did not fall for the Left’s fear mongering over January 6th.”
The Jan. 6 tale that Mr. Trump tells is its own kind of replacement theory, one that covers over the marble-hard facts the way a blue carpet will cover those tainted Capitol steps on Inauguration Day.
The Seeds of Suspicion
What happened and why seemed beyond debate.
Hundreds of thousands of tips. Tens of thousands of hours of video footage. Thousands of seized cellphones. The attack on the Capitol was, after all, the largest digital crime scene in history, the total estimated cost of its aftermath exceeding $2.7 billion.
The Justice Department has experienced some setbacks in its criminal prosecutions — including a Supreme Court ruling that it overreached in using a controversial obstruction statute — but its success rate has been overwhelming. More than half of the nearly 1,600 defendants have pleaded guilty, while 200 more have been convicted after trial, resulting in sentences ranging from a few days in jail for misdemeanor trespassing to 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.
The story told by many of the indictments begins with a mixed-message speech delivered before the riot by Mr. Trump in a park near the White House. After falsely claiming that the 2020 election had been stolen, he encouraged people to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol, but reminded them that “we fight like hell.”
Mr. Trump retired to the White House, where he watched the televised violence and ignored advice to tell the mob to leave. Then, after sending two tweets calling for peaceful protest, he posted a video repeating his rigged-election falsehood and saying: “We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special.”
A follow-up tweet ended: “Remember this day forever!”
Condemnation came swiftly. As shaken Republican leaders denounced him and Democrats moved to impeach him for “incitement of insurrection,” a seemingly chastened Mr. Trump called the riot “a heinous attack on the United States Capitol.” In those early days, he referred to Jan. 6 as “the calamity at the Capitol” and warned that lawbreakers “will pay.”
The outgoing president called for national unity but declined to attend his successor’s inauguration. The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him of incitement, but its leader, Mitch McConnell, declared him “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day” — a sentiment apparently shared by most Americans, with nearly 60 percent saying in polls that he should never hold office again.
But sand was already being thrown in the eyes of history.
Before the Capitol had even been secured, Representative Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona, was asserting on Twitter that the events had “all the hallmarks of Antifa provocation.” Hours later, the Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham was telling viewers that “there are some reports that antifa sympathizers may have been sprinkled throughout the crowd.” And by morning, Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, was claiming on the House floor that some rioters “were masquerading as Trump supporters and in fact were members of the violent terrorist group antifa.” (Mr. Gaetz would become President-elect Trump’s first choice for attorney general before being derailed by scandal.)
According to M.I.T. Technology Review, this fabrication was repeated online more than 400,000 times in the 24 hours after the Capitol attack, amplified by a cast of MAGA influencers, Republican officials and members of Mr. Trump’s family.
The former president remained mostly silent in the weeks that followed. But in a late March interview with Washington Post reporters that was not made public until months later, he provided an early hint of how he would frame the Jan. 6 attack.
The day he had previously called calamitous was now largely peaceful. The mob that stormed the Capitol had been “ushered in” by the police. And those who had rallied with him beforehand were a “loving crowd.”
A Deep-State Conspiracy Theory
Through the spring and summer of 2021, Mr. Trump’s Republican allies sought to sow doubt and blame others. It was as if Mr. McConnell, among other leading Republicans, had never publicly declared Mr. Trump responsible. As if the world had not seen what it had seen.
In early May, on the same day House Republicans stripped Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming of her leadership role for labeling Mr. Trump a threat to democracy, they used an Oversight Committee hearing to minimize the riot. Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina questioned whether all those rioters wearing Trump gear and shouting pro-Trump chants were truly Trump supporters, while Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia likened much of the trespassing to a “normal tourist visit.”
This benign interpretation of Jan. 6 gave way to a much more startling theory, posed in mid-June by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, at the time perhaps the most-watched commentator in cable news: The riot had been a false-flag operation orchestrated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. Gaetz and another Republican loyalist, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, quickly seconded the deep-state conspiracy theory, while Mr. Gosar entered the article on which it was based — written by Darren Beattie, a former Trump speechwriter who had been fired for speaking at a conference beside white supremacists — into the Congressional Record.
Soon after, Mr. Trump broke his monthslong silence about Jan. 6. At an early July rally in Sarasota, Fla., he invoked the name of Ashli Babbitt, a pro-Trump rioter who had been fatally shot by a Capitol police officer while trying to breach the House floor, where lawmakers and staff members had sought safety. She was fast becoming a martyr to the cause.
“Shot, boom,” Mr. Trump said. “There was no reason for it. Who shot Ashli Babbitt?”
The former president also referred to the jailed rioters. Floating the specter of a justice system prejudiced against conservatives, he questioned why “so many people are still in jail over Jan. 6” when antifa and Black Lives Matter hadn’t paid a price for the violent protests that followed the murder of a Black man, George Floyd, by a white Minneapolis police officer in 2020.
The fog machine of conspiracy was turned up a few notches that fall, when the Fox Nation streaming service released “Patriot Purge,” a three-part series in which Mr. Carlson expanded on his specious contention that the Capitol attack was a government plot to discredit Mr. Trump and persecute conservatives.
The widely denounced claim was deemed so outrageous that two Fox News contributors, Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, resigned in protest. In a scathing blog post, they wrote that the program was a hodgepodge of “factual inaccuracies, half-truths, deceptive imagery and damning omissions.”
Mr. Carlson’s documentary, they wrote, “creates an alternative history of January 6, contradicted not just by common sense, not just by the testimony and on-the-record statements of many participants, but by the reporting of the news division of Fox News itself.”
Martyrs and Vigils
Amid the conspiratorial swirl of antifa agitators and deep-state plots, a related narrative was gaining traction: the glorification of those who had attacked the Capitol. Instead of marauders, vandals and aggressors, they were now political prisoners, hostages, martyrs. Patriots.
This movement’s energy radiated from a troubled detention center in Washington where a few dozen men charged with attacking police officers and committing other violent offenses were held. A defiant esprit de corps developed among them in the so-called Patriot Wing, where inmates in prison-issue orange gathered every night to sing the national anthem.
Outside the razor-wire walls, their supporters kept vigil in a spot dubbed the “Freedom Corner.” Led by Ms. Babbitt’s mother, among others, they set out snacks, flew American flags and live-streamed phone conversations with inmates.
Sympathy that might have been reserved for the injured police officers was directed instead to those who had assaulted them. And Mr. Trump — whose Jan. 6 actions were now being investigated by the Justice Department and a bipartisan House select committee — emerged in 2022 as their No. 1 sympathizer.
At a mid-January rally in Florence, Ariz., he described the Jan. 6 defendants as persecuted political prisoners. Later that month, in Conroe, Texas, he promised that if he was re-elected, and if pardons were required, “we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly.”
Mr. Trump’s counteroffensive began taking shape. The House select committee, whose members included Ms. Cheney, became in his words the “unselect committee” and the prevailing narrative of Jan. 6 as an insurrection “a lot of crap.”
One of his most repeated contentions was that the Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had rejected his recommendation to have 10,000 soldiers present on Jan. 6. But subsequent investigations demonstrated that it was his own military advisers, and not Ms. Pelosi, who blocked the idea, concerned with both the optics of armed soldiers at a political protest and the possibility that Mr. Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act to place the troops under his direct command.
“There is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol,” the acting defense secretary, Christopher Miller, later told investigators. Doing so, he said, could have created “the greatest constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.”
As the select committee began holding hearings in early June 2022, Mr. Trump used speeches and his social media platform, Truth Social, to clap back at the damaging evidence and testimony. One post read: “The so-called ‘Rush on the Capitol’ was not caused by me, it was caused by a Rigged and Stolen Election!”
In a speech in Nashville that month, he dismissed the riot as a “simple protest” that “got out of hand,” again floated the possibility of pardons and furthered the false-flag theory by mentioning Ray Epps, a protester falsely portrayed by Mr. Carlson on Fox News and Republicans in Congress as a government plant who had stage-managed the riot.
His efforts seemed to be working. By mid-2022, an NBC News poll found that fewer than half of Americans still considered Mr. Trump “solely” or “mainly” responsible for Jan. 6.
For some supporters, though, Mr. Trump was not doing enough. In the late summer, he agreed to meet two advocates for the Jan. 6 defendants at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.: Julie Kelly, a conservative journalist who had written skeptically about the Capitol attack, and Cynthia Hughes, a founder of the Patriot Freedom Project, which supported the inmates’ families. Ms. Hughes was also an aunt of Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a professed Hitler fanboy who had spent time in the Patriot Wing.
They told Mr. Trump that the defendants and their families felt abandoned by him, Ms. Kelly later recalled, and that some of the federal judges in Washington he had appointed were among the worst in their handling of Jan. 6 cases.
These jurists had earned the ire of people like Ms. Kelly by repeatedly rejecting arguments that the defendants could not get fair trials in liberal Washington or had been unduly prosecuted for their pro-Trump politics. The judges also knocked down the contention that nonviolent rioters should not have been charged at all, ruling that everyone in the mob, “no matter how modestly behaved,” contributed to the chaos at the Capitol.
After his meeting with the women, Mr. Trump donated $10,000 to Ms. Hughes’s organization and told a conservative radio host that if he was elected, there would be full pardons and “an apology to many.” Days later, Ms. Hughes was given a speaking role at a Trump rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Ms. Hughes’s Patriot Freedom Project closed out 2022 with a fund-raising holiday party at the Capitol Hill Hilton, in sight of the riot scene. Children received gifts, inmates spoke to the crowd from jail and tearful family members shared their hardships. There was also a surprise video message of encouragement from Mr. Trump, who had recently announced his candidacy.
Then, just before Christmas, the House select committee released its final report, based largely on testimony from those inside Mr. Trump’s orbit. It accused him of repeatedly lying about a stolen election and summoning the angry mob that thwarted a peaceful transition between administrations.
In the report’s foreword, Ms. Cheney recalled how her great-great-grandfather answered Abraham Lincoln’s call to defend the union by joining the 21st Ohio Volunteer Infantry. He fought for four years, she wrote, for the same essential principle the committee was empaneled to protect: the peaceful transfer of power.
The Candidate and the Prison Choir
Perhaps the moment when Mr. Trump and his allies fully embraced their alternate version of history came on March 3, 2023, when a new song appeared on major streaming platforms.
The song, “Justice for All,” featured Mr. Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance while the men of the Patriot Wing, now billing themselves as the J6 Prison Choir, sang the national anthem. In other words, it was a collaboration between a man seeking the Republican presidential nomination and about 20 men charged with attacking the nerve center of the republic.
Mr. Trump recorded his contribution at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, while the choir was recorded with a phone in the Washington jail. The song — a fund-raising effort that the Trump loyalist Kash Patel, now the president-elect’s nominee to head the F.B.I., helped produce — concludes with a defiant echo of the “U.S.A.!” chants that resounded during the Jan. 6 attack.
The first Trump campaign rally for the 2024 election took place three weeks later, in Waco, Texas, where a deadly standoff between federal agents and a religious cult in 1993 became a far-right touchstone. Before launching into complaints about persecution and promises of retribution, the candidate placed his hand over his heart for the playing of what an announcer called “the No. 1 song” on iTunes and Amazon, featuring Mr. Trump “and the J6 Choir.”
Mr. Trump’s version of the attack on the Capitol had firmly taken hold, at least within his party. A YouGov poll at the time found that most Republicans believed the events of Jan. 6 reflected “legitimate political discourse.”
In August 2023, Mr. Trump was indicted twice on charges of interfering with the 2020 election results: at the state level, for illegally seeking to overturn the results of the election in Georgia, which he had narrowly lost; and at the federal level, for conspiring to impede the Jan. 6 certification of Mr. Biden’s election.
A subsequent court filing by Jack Smith, the special counsel leading the federal investigation, cited Mr. Trump’s steadfast endorsement of the rioters and of the prison choir, “many of whose criminal history and/or crimes on January 6 were so violent that their pretrial release would pose a danger to the public.” The former president, it continued, “has financially supported and celebrated these offenders — many of whom assaulted law enforcement on January 6 — by promoting and playing their recording of the national anthem at political rallies and calling them ‘hostages.’”
All true. Still, Mr. Trump continued to play “Justice for All” at rallies and at Mar-a-Lago, spread his rigged-election lie, drop intimations of false-flag conspiracies, refer to those who stormed the Capitol as patriots — and, now, transformed the indictments into further fuel for his persecution narrative.
In so many ways, Jan. 6 had become part of his brand — a brand in which an attack on the symbol of American democracy became a defense of that same democracy: a blow against political thugs and closet communists, deep-state plots and an unjust justice system.
A part of the brand that, in November, helped Mr. Trump win election as the 47th president of the United States.
Promising Pardons — and Payback
Once he takes office, Mr. Trump will be positioned to finish refashioning Jan. 6 as a modern Lost Cause of the Confederacy.
With the help of Republican loyalists, the Senate acquitted him of incitement at his impeachment trial. The Supreme Court he had helped mold rejected an attempt to keep him off the ballot under a constitutional ban against insurrectionists from holding office. And his legal maneuvering — to delay, delay, delay — succeeded: In the days after the election, Mr. Smith, the special counsel, dropped his election-subversion case, adhering to a Justice Department policy not to prosecute a sitting president.
An emboldened Mr. Trump has already indicated that his presidential agenda will include payback for those who declared him responsible for the Capitol attack. He has said that Mr. Smith “should be thrown out of the country,” and that Ms. Cheney and other leaders of the House select committee — “one of the greatest political scams in history,” his spokeswoman, Ms. Leavitt, said — should “go to jail,” without providing evidence to warrant such extreme measures.
At the same time, Mr. Trump’s repeated vows to pardon those implicated in the Capitol riot, an act of erasure that would validate their claims of political persecution, has electrified the Jan. 6 community of families, defendants and felons. On election night, those keeping vigil outside the Washington jail celebrated with champagne.
Even though Mr. Trump has not specified whom he would pardon, many Jan. 6 participants are anticipating a general amnesty for everyone involved. One defendant, charged with attacking police officers with a baseball bat, even promoted an A.I. video of inmates in orange jumpsuits parading triumphantly out of jailhouse doors.
Many defendants have requested delays in their court proceedings because, they say, the imminent pardons will render their cases moot. Among those employing this argument was Philip Sean Grillo, convicted of several misdemeanors after entering the Capitol through a broken window and later boasting in a recording that “we stormed the Capitol. We shut it down! We did it!”
But to Mr. Grillo’s misfortune, the federal judge handling his case was Royce C. Lamberth, 81, a no-nonsense former prosecutor who had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Judge Lamberth not only rejected Mr. Grillo’s request for a delay, he filed a court document to “clear the air” and “remind ourselves what really happened.”
With clinical precision, the judge recalled how an angry mob invaded and occupied the Capitol with intentions to “thwart the peaceful transfer of power that is the centerpiece of our Constitution and the cornerstone of our republican legacy”; how they ignored directives to turn back and desist; how some engaged in “pitched battle” with the police, “stampeding through and over the officers.”
“They told the world that the election was stolen, a claim for which no evidence has ever emerged,” the judge wrote. “They told the world that they were there to put a stop to the transfer of power, even if that meant ransacking, emptying, and desecrating our country’s most hallowed sites. Most disturbingly, they told the world that particular elected officials who were present at the Capitol that day had to be removed, hurt, or even killed.”
The country came “perilously close” to letting the orderly transfer of power slip away, Judge Lamberth wrote. He knew this, he said, because he and his colleagues had presided over hundreds of trials, read hundreds of guilty pleas, heard from hundreds of law enforcement witnesses — “and viewed thousands of hours of video footage attesting to the bedlam.”
With that, Judge Lamberth ordered Mr. Grillo to be taken immediately into custody to begin a sentence of one year in prison.
As he was being handcuffed, the Jan. 6 rioter taunted the veteran judge by saying it didn’t matter: He would be pardoned anyway — by a man who will soon benefit from the peaceful transfer of power while standing on a blue carpet covering an old crime scene.
Dylan Freedman contributed reporting.
Politics
Which Trump Tariffs Are in Place, in the Works or Ruled Illegal
Under President Trump, the tariffs keep on changing.
The latest shift arrived this week after a federal trade court ruled that the current centerpiece of his trade strategy — a 10 percent tax on most imports from around the world — exceeded the president’s authority under the law.
For now, that across-the-board duty remains in place, with an appeal getting underway. Still, the legal battle, which is far from finished, adds to the uncertainty that has plagued businesses and consumers throughout Mr. Trump’s global trade war.
Sorting out the tariffs that currently apply (or don’t) generally has boiled down to tracking the status of a handful of high-stakes lawsuits.
Many of the president’s tariffs — the sky-high rates that he first imposed on what became known as “Liberation Day” last year — were struck down by the Supreme Court in February. The administration has begun the work to refund the money collected under those duties, which totals around $166 billion, and the first checks are expected to arrive as soon as Monday.
This bucket of tariffs includes the country-by-country rates that Mr. Trump first announced to combat the illicit sale of drugs, as well as those he imposed on a “reciprocal” basis in response to what he described as persistent trade imbalances.
Other tariffs applied by Mr. Trump are more legally settled, yet have shifted up or down with some frequency as the White House has sought to accomplish its economic goals — or lessen the consequences of the president’s policies. These include the tariffs that the president applied to products like cars and steel on national security grounds, using a legal provision known as Section 232.
Yet much remains uncertain about Mr. Trump’s next steps, and his tariffs are expected to change considerably — again — in the coming months. Using another set of authorities, known as Section 301, the administration has opened investigations into the trade practices of dozens of countries. Mr. Trump’s goal is to revive the sort of tariffs that he had in place before the Supreme Court sided against him.
At the same time, Mr. Trump has continued to lob new tariff threats against countries, including those in Europe, while promising in general terms to double down on his strategy even in the face of court setbacks.
“We always do it a different way,” Mr. Trump said this week when asked about his latest loss. “We get one ruling, and we do it a different way.”
Politics
Inside the US military playbook to cripple Iran if nuclear talks collapse
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
If negotiations with Iran collapse, the U.S. likely is to move quickly to degrade Tehran’s military capabilities — a campaign analysts say would begin with missile systems, naval assets and command networks before escalating to more controversial targets.
Negotiators are still working toward what officials describe as a preliminary framework agreement — effectively a one-page starting point for broader talks centered on Iran’s nuclear program and potential sanctions relief. But deep mistrust on both sides has left the process fragile, raising the stakes if diplomacy fails.
“We’re not starting at zero,” retired Army Col. Seth Krummrich, a former Joint Staff planner and current Vice President at Global Guardian, told Fox News Digital. “We’re both starting at minus 1,000 because neither side trusts each other at all. This is going to be a pretty hard process going forward.”
That tension was on display Thursday, when a senior U.S. official confirmed American forces struck Iran’s Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas — key locations near the Strait of Hormuz — while insisting the operation did not mark a restart of the war or the end of the ceasefire.
The strike on one of Iran’s oil ports came two days after Iran launched 15 ballistic and cruise missiles at the UAE’s Fujairah Port, drawing anger from Gulf allies. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine said earlier this week the attack did not rise to the level of breaking the ceasefire, describing it as a low-level strike.
President Donald Trump repeatedly has warned that if negotiations collapse, the U.S. could resume bombing Iran — even signaling before the recent ceasefire was implemented that Washington could target the country’s energy infrastructure and key economic assets. But any escalation would likely unfold in phases, beginning with efforts to dismantle Iran’s ability to project force across the region before expanding to more controversial targets.
President Donald Trump has warned repeatedly that if negotiations collapse, the U.S. could resume bombing Iran. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
If talks break down, any renewed conflict would likely become a “contest for escalation control,” where Iran seeks to impose costs without provoking regime-threatening retaliation while the U.S. works to strip away Tehran’s remaining leverage, according to retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula.
“The capabilities that would come into focus are the ones Iran uses to generate coercive leverage: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air defense systems, maritime strike assets, command-and-control networks, IRGC infrastructure, proxy support channels, and nuclear-related facilities,” he said, referring to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“The military objective would be less about punishment and more about denying Iran the tools it uses to escalate,” he said.
“President Trump has all the cards, and he wisely keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales told Fox News Digital. The Pentagon could not immediately be reached for comment.
One early focus could be Iran’s fleet of fast attack boats in the Strait of Hormuz — a central component of Tehran’s ability to threaten global shipping in one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.
RP Newman, a military and terrorism analyst and Marine Corp veteran, said leaving much of that fleet intact during earlier strikes was a mistake.
IRAN’S REMAINING WEAPONS: HOW TEHRAN CAN STILL DISRUPT THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ
“We’ve blown up six of them,” he said. “They’ve got about 400 left.”
The small, fast-moving boats are a key part of Iran’s asymmetric maritime strategy, capable of harassing commercial tankers and U.S. naval forces — and could quickly become a priority target in any renewed campaign.
Much of Iran’s core military structure also remains intact.
INSIDE IRAN’S MILITARY: MISSILES, MILITIAS AND A FORCE BUILT FOR SURVIVAL
Newman said “we’ve only killed less than one percent of IRGC troops,” leaving a large portion of the force still capable of carrying out operations. He estimated the group “numbers between 150 and 190,000.”
But targeting the IRGC is far more complex than eliminating senior leadership.
“They’re not just a group of leaders at the top that you can kill away,” Krummrich said. “Over 47 years it’s percolated down to every level.”
An excavator removes rubble at the site of a strike that destroyed half of the Khorasaniha Synagogue and nearby residential buildings in Tehran, Iran, on April 7, 2026, according to a security official at the scene. (Francisco Seco/AP)
Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies policy institute, said Washington may continue tightening economic pressure before broadening military action, arguing the U.S. should “squeeze them for at least another three to six weeks” before considering more aggressive escalation.
“You could have blown Kharg Island back to smithereens,” Krummrich said, referring to Iran’s primary oil export terminal in the Persian Gulf. “But what the planner said was, no — what we can do is a maritime blockade. It will have the same effect.”
Iran has continued moving crude through covert shipping networks and ship-to-ship transfers, with tanker trackers reporting millions of barrels still reaching markets in recent weeks.
A CIA analysis found Iran may be able to sustain those pressures for another three to four months before facing more severe economic strain, according to a report by The Washington Post.
The question is how far a U.S. campaign could expand if initial pressure fails to force concessions.
Trump has signaled a willingness to go further, warning before the ceasefire that the U.S. could “completely obliterate” Iran’s electric generating plants, oil infrastructure and key export hubs such as Kharg Island if a deal is not reached.
Strikes on the Iranian leadership, the IRGC, and Iranian naval vessels and oil infrastructure have roiled the markets. ( Sasan / Middle East Images / AFP via Getty Images)
“You don’t do that at first,” Montgomery said, describing strikes on dual-use infrastructure as a conditional step dependent on Iran’s response.
Targeting dual-use infrastructure presents significant legal and operational challenges.
“I’ve got 500 people standing on my target. You can’t hit that,” Newman said.
Such decisions carry political and legal risks, particularly given the likelihood of international scrutiny.
Broader infrastructure strikes also could create long-term instability if they push Iran toward internal collapse.
“In the short term, it might help. But in the long term, we’re all going to have to deal with it,” Krummrich said. “Once you pull that lever, you’re basically pushing Iran closer to the edge of the abyss.”
A collapse of state authority could create a failed-state scenario across the Strait of Hormuz, with armed groups, drones and missiles operating unchecked in one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.
Even some of the most discussed military options — such as seizing Iran’s highly enriched uranium — would be extremely difficult to execute.
“That’s much harder than it sounds,” said Montgomery.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Such a mission would likely take months, and require engineers, technicians and heavy excavation equipment, in addition to thousands of U.S. operators providing continuous air coverage.
“When you start to stack that up, that becomes resource intensive and high risk — not even high, extreme risk,” said Krummrich.
Politics
Commentary: For all the chatter by mayoral candidates, can anyone fix L.A.’s enduring problems?
I’m going to start this story on a quiet tree-lined street in Mar Vista, where a couple I met with on Thursday — the day after the L.A. mayoral debate — have a problem.
It’s not an unusual matter, as things go in Los Angeles. On both sides of the street, the sidewalk rises and falls, uprooted and cracked by shallow roots because over many decades, the trees were not properly maintained.
John Coanda, 61, who grew up in Los Angeles, was never bothered by torn-up sidewalks as a kid.
“In fact,” he said when he first emailed me about his predicament, “my friends and I sometimes used the ramping pavement as jumps for our bicycles.”
But his wife, Barbara, was diagnosed in 2024 with ALS, and she uses a wheelchair. When John pushes her, they can’t use the sidewalk if they want to go to the store or meet with friends, or just enjoy a nice pass through the neighborhood without getting into a vehicle.
So John pushes Barbara’s wheelchair in the street, which creates an obvious safety problem. And despite John’s best efforts to get City Hall to fix the sidewalks, he’s not expecting help anytime soon.
I’ll circle back to this story, but first, about that debate.
I recruited a half-dozen L.A. residents to watch and send me their thoughts about how the candidates tackled the important issues. And then I felt guilty for having done so, because the candidates didn’t do much tackling at all.
Candidate Spencer Pratt is shown on a television while journalists work during the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral debate at Skirball Cultural Center.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
They hit their talking points, for sure, and Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Nithya Raman and TV personality Spencer Pratt each had their moments. But by the end of the debate, and two straight nights of gubernatorial debates as well, I came away thinking there were no clear winners, but there was a definite loser.
Voters.
This is the fault of the format more than of the candidates themselves. The deck is stacked against meaningful, substantive discussions, especially when moderators ask — as they did several times — for one-word answers.
“Moderator questions are so meaningless … and they make it easy for candidates to take potshots at each other,” said longtime political sage Darry Sragow. “The format is guaranteed to elicit nothing that matters.”
It’d be better to have single-issue debates, and to have candidates pressed for details by journalists who cover those issues and can push back against unrealistic promises and expose a lack of depth.
My debate watchers did some of that themselves. CSUN librarian Yi Ding had praise and criticism for each candidate, but was looking for concrete plans and didn’t get many.
Ding was also disappointed that two other mayoral candidates — Ray Huang and Adam Miller — were not invited to the debate, and I agree with her. Both have been polling low, but with so many undecided voters, and such high unfavorability ratings for Bass, they should have been in the mix.
Mike Washington, a retired pharmacist and West Adams resident, said Bass has done better than previous mayors on homelessness and he didn’t think Raman or Pratt came off as worthy of bumping her out of City Hall.
“The public would have benefited from more questions related to the challenges young people are facing,” said Juan Solorio Jr., president of the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats club. His colleague David Ramirez agreed, saying he was hoping for “more discussion about the cost of living for young adults,” but he and Solorio are both backing Bass.
West L.A. software developer Mike Eveloff asked the million-dollar question in one of his many observations during the debate:
“Why is LA spending record amounts on homelessness, fire, police, and infrastructure while results deteriorate? Streets and sidewalks crumble. Even the city emblem right in front of City Hall is deteriorated. With the World Cup and Olympics approaching, voters need to know: Do these leaders have the financial discipline and operational competence to manage a fourteen billion dollar city?”
Venice resident Dennis Hathaway, author of “An Octogenarian’s Journal,” said he thinks “these kinds of debates are pretty non-edifying.” And, as someone I wrote about two years ago regarding busted sidewalks in his neighborhood, he shared this lament about Thursday’s debate:
“No mention of broken sidewalks, potholed streets, other deteriorated infrastructure. To me, that’s a much more important subject than non-citizens voting in city elections.”
(Bass did say during the debate that there was a new infrastucture plan in place, and that’s a step in the right direction. But there was no discussion, and when you read the details, 2028 Olympics projects will be prioritized, and it’ll take years to figure out how to fund thousands of additional much-needed fixes.)
The Coandas live not far from Hathaway, and their lives have been upended first by Barbara’s diagnosis and then by John getting laid off in February from his job as a data analyst. Barbara still teaches French via Zoom, and John is tending to her needs. They started a Gofundme campaign to help pay their bills.
With Barbara in a wheelchair, John contacted the city’s Safe Sidewalks L.A. program last fall, and I think it’s fair to say that name is somewhere between a misnomer and a bad joke.
The “program” responded by email on Halloween, appropriately enough, informing him that under the City Council-approved “Sidewalk Repair Program Prioritization and Scoring System,” his request for help merits only 15 points out of a possible 45.
“Currently,” he was informed, “the estimated wait time for completion of an Access Request with a score of 15 is in excess of 10 years.”
Happy Halloween.
Over the years, responsibility for sidewalk repairs has shifted between the city and homeowners. There’s a rebate program available to people who repair their own sidewalks, but it’s capped at an amount that doesn’t always cover the costs. And ruptured pavement is keeping lots of lawyers busy with trip-and-fall lawsuits that cost the city millions each year.
Barbara Durieux Coanda, who has ALS, and her husband, John Coanda, make their way down the ramp in front of their home in Mar Vista.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Coanda told me he doesn’t have the funds at the moment to pay for repairs, and even if he did, there are several more sidewalk disaster zones on both sides of his street, so he’d still have to push his wife’s wheelchair in the street even if he fixed the cracks in front of his own house.
Barbara graciously said she thinks the city has other, higher priorities, but in November her husband contacted the office of Councilmember Traci Park, saying he was told that he would have to wait 10 years for repairs.
“Sadly,” he wrote, “I don’t think my wife will live that long.”
A Park staffer wrote back, saying, “The turnaround time does sound realistic given the budgetary crisis the city finds itself in.” But, the staffer added, maybe the council member’s office could “help move the needle on this request.”
Coanda said he’s been too busy with his wife’s issues to follow up. But Pete Brown, Park’s communications director, told me Friday afternoon that the office is exploring ways to pay for fixes that don’t take 10 years, including the use of discretionary funds.
I don’t know how that might play out, but I do know that L.A. doesn’t need another debate like the last one.
We need a mayor and council members who refuse to accept that it takes 10 years to create safe passage for a wheelchair.
In the national capital of broken sidewalks, we need concrete plans.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
-
Indiana4 minutes ago6 Best Towns Near Indianapolis For Retirees
-
Iowa10 minutes agoGroundbreaking held for Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity’s 16th Woman Build
-
Kansas16 minutes agoThis Chiefs-Bears trade would land Kansas City it’s long-term Travis Kelce replacement
-
Kentucky22 minutes agoBody found in Ohio River in northeast Kentucky ID’d as Columbus man
-
Louisiana28 minutes ago
Eight children killed in Louisiana mass shooting remembered at funeral
-
Maine34 minutes agoMaine inmate arrested after walking off Thomaston jobsite, corrections officers say
-
Maryland40 minutes agoMifepristone ruling could halt mailed abortion pills in ‘shield states’ like Maryland – WTOP News
-
Michigan46 minutes agoList of active weather alerts as storms move through Southeast Michigan