Politics

Harris has been called 'soft' and 'tough' on crime. What does her record show?

Published

1 year ago

October 20, 2024

Harris has been called 'soft' and 'tough' on crime. What does her record show?

At every step of her political career, Kamala Harris has faced the same question: What sort of prosecutor was she?

As a former San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general, the vice president has been called both “soft” and “tough” on crime. She has been labeled a progressive and a moderate. At times, she and her supporters have added to the debate by leaning into one narrative or the other, depending on the office she sought.

Now, as Harris’ record as a prosecutor looms large in the presidential race, many voters say they don’t know what she stands for, and that her opponent, former President Trump — a convicted felon who talks tough on crime — seems more willing to go after criminals.

In a statement to The Times, Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Harris was “soft on murderers, gun criminals, and drug dealers” and “helped destroy California.”

According to more than a dozen people who knew Harris as a prosecutor — who hired her, worked alongside her, ran against her or worked for her — such claims are meritless.

They say defining her as a prosecutor is complicated because she never fit neatly into any political box, but that a handful of episodes from her earlier career showcase how she balanced a penchant for compassionate reforms with an innate seriousness and an instinct for accountability.

Early days

Harris got her first prosecutor job out of law school as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, where she worked for eight years.

She then joined the San Francisco district attorney’s office, where she served as chief of the Career Criminal Division, and the San Francisco city attorney’s office, where she ran the Family and Children’s Services Division. She took on and beat progressive San Francisco Dist. Atty. Terence Hallinan in 2003.

Critics have suggested Harris’ rise had more to do with political savvy — or her relationship in the mid-1990s with San Francisco political kingmaker Willie Brown — than talent or smarts. But supporters who knew her then tell a different story.

Though Harris was savvy and Brown certainly helped her, particularly with donors, she was hardworking and dedicated, they said, and rose through the ranks because she was good at her job.

San Francisco City Atty. David Chiu said that when he started as a deputy district attorney, colleagues urged him to watch Harris in court.

“I was told that if I wanted to learn the craft, I should go watch the closing arguments of a great prosecutor — and obviously it was her,” Chiu recalled. “I saw her brilliance, her toughness, her ability to scrap, but combined with a real warmth and compassion.”

Former San Francisco City Atty. Louise Renne said that same combination made Harris the perfect person to oversee child abuse cases in her office. “I was looking for somebody who could both be tough on the law — because you had to be tough — and yet was compassionate and recognized the emotional trauma involved,” she said.

Back on Track

Harris launched Back on Track, an anti-recidivism program for nonviolent, first-time offenders, soon after becoming district attorney.

To join the program, defendants had to plead guilty, which Harris touted as “accountability.” To graduate, they had to earn a GED, get a job, perform community service, pay off any outstanding child support and remain drug free. If they succeeded, the plea would be wiped from their record. If they failed, it would stick.

To run the program, Harris hired Lateefah Simon, a young woman who had overcome adversity to lead the local Center for Young Women’s Development. (Simon is now running for the House seat being vacated by Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee in Oakland.)

Simon said Harris believed deeply in its mission to interrupt cycles of crime by holding young people accountable and surrounding them with support and opportunities.

“It was the hardest program to get through, but it was designed by Black women — she and myself — who really understood why these young people were making these life- or-death decisions on the streets for a few dollars,” Simon said.

The program, which Harris replicated elsewhere in the state as attorney general, ran into criticism for admitting undocumented immigrants with no legal right to work. The problem was revealed after an undocumented program participant committed a violent crime.

Harris said the admission of undocumented defendants was a mistake, and promptly fixed. Simon said it was her “screwup,” as she had designed the program without a screening tool for work eligibility.

Simon said she offered to resign, but Harris tartly ordered her back to work. “There was an expletive in there, and she said, ‘Get back to the office, and update your program,’” Simon said.

Simon said Harris balances a strong instinct for reform with an innate sense of personal responsibility, which Simon said she recognized from her own childhood — where she was surrounded by Black women who knew their communities deserved better, but were ‘’tough as old bologna when it comes to order.”

“Kamala,” she said with a laugh, “is like every auntie that I have.”

Soft on crime?

One of the most frequent criticisms lobbed at Harris by Republicans — including Trump and the Heritage Foundation, the group behind Project 2025 — is that she is “soft on crime.” Heritage even called her “pro-crime.”

Critics have pointed in particular to disputes over homicide cases. San Francisco police sometimes arrested homicide suspects that Harris’ prosecutors declined to charge, drawing allegations that she wasn’t willing to try difficult murder cases — possibly to keep her conviction rates high.

Harris’ supporters say such claims are preposterous — that no prosecutor would decline viable murder cases to improve conviction rates, and that Harris’ line prosecutors would have revolted if she’d tried.

They said the real reason prosecutors declined cases was because the police had done shoddy work or had insufficient evidence.

Others have accused Harris of going soft on criminals by approving lenient plea deals. Her supporters say her office pushed low-level offenders into diversion, yes, but struck sensible plea deals with others and aggressively prosecuted repeat and violent offenders.

“She was one of the first prosecutors that was very intentional about challenging what was ‘hard on crime’ or ‘soft on crime,’ looking at those aggregate consequences to say, ‘How can we do better?’,” said Paul Henderson, a former administrative chief in Harris’ office.

Death penalty

Less than four months into Harris’ time as district attorney, a San Francisco police officer named Isaac Espinoza was killed by a 21-year-old gunman named David Hill. Police, community members and local leaders called for the death penalty.

Harris, who had campaigned on her opposition to capital punishment, refused, announcing before Espinoza’s funeral that she would seek a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. At the funeral, the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein sharply criticized Harris’ decision, and officers began shunning her. Espinoza’s widow and other members of his family also condemned the decision.

Bill Fazio, a former homicide prosecutor who ran against Harris for D.A., said the episode made for a tense few months for Harris — but it was the right decision.

Fazio said he sought the death penalty nine times as a San Francisco homicide prosecutor and secured a death sentence verdict just once — and it was overturned on appeal. San Francisco juries don’t like the death penalty, he said, and even when it is handed down, it’s rarely carried out.

Pursuing such a sentence against Hill, who was “a relatively young defendant who really had no prior record to speak of,” would have made little sense, and the fact Harris understood that goes to her credit, Fazio said.

“This woman was a practicing prosecutor,” he said. “She wasn’t some phony-ass person who was appointed by some politician.”

Later, as attorney general, Harris drew criticism from the left when she defended the state’s death penalty after a judge determined it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Critics described Harris’ decision to defend the law as hypocritical given her stance in the Espinoza case, but she said it was her duty as attorney general.

Same-sex marriage

In 2008, California voters narrowly passed Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages. The measure came after the state’s Supreme Court had approved such unions, and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples had been wed in the state.

Marriage advocates challenged the proposition, and a federal judge ruled the ban was unconstitutional. Harris — a longtime supporter of LGBTQ+ rights who had previously officiated same-sex unions in San Francisco — was running for attorney general at the time, and promised not to challenge the judge’s decision if she won.

Critics of Harris today accuse her of playing politics — of failing to set aside her own beliefs and do her duty as attorney general, as she did with the death penalty. But those close to Harris said she agreed with the judge that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

Proponents of Proposition 8 challenged the decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2013 found that they lacked standing to bring the case because they weren’t personally harmed by the measure’s overturning.

Harris cheered the decision, and promptly officiated another marriage in San Francisco.

Kalama Harris, then attorney general of California, officiates the same-sex wedding of Kris Perry, left, and Sandy Stier in San Francisco on June 28, 2013.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

Transnational gangs

In an election hyper-focused on immigration and border security, Harris has campaigned on her past efforts to dismantle transnational gangs along the U.S. and Mexico border — which her critics have challenged.

Steve Cooley, a former Los Angeles County district attorney and Harris’ opponent in the attorney general race, called her a progressive prosecutor who “made no effort whatsoever to fight” a decision by then-Gov. Jerry Brown to save money by shuttering a long-standing anti-gang unit in the attorney general’s office. “She just let it go,” Cooley said.

In fact, Harris publicly opposed the budget cuts, saying they would “cripple” the state’s anti-gang and drug trafficking work.

Jeffrey Tsai, a former special assistant attorney general, said Harris deserves a lot of credit for going after transnational gangs, in part by breaking long-standing norms and opening direct lines of communication between California and Mexico law enforcement — which began collaborating much more intensely on anti-trafficking measures.

“Her challenging that traditional notion of the role of a state … was not quaint. To me it was rather significant, because it symbolized a lot of where I think her head’s at in terms of policy,” Tsai said.

Tori Verber Salazar, a former Republican district attorney of San Joaquin County, said Harris also helped her county confront drug trafficking by strengthening the state’s relationship with U.S. federal law enforcement, which brought more resources to small counties for expensive investigative tools, such as wiretaps.

“She’s a bad ass,” Salazar said. “She gave us the tools and the weapons to do what we needed to do to go after the kingpins.”

Big banks

Shortly after becoming attorney general, Harris joined negotiations between various state attorneys general and large mortgage institutions over improper foreclosure practices during the housing market collapse, which had displaced families across the country.

Not long after, however, Harris pulled out, accusing the banks of offering far too little compensation to Californians.

Her decision was considered ill-advised by some, and she faced a lot of pressure to reverse course.

“It was a lonely place,” said one former senior advisor who asked to remain anonymous in order to speak candidly about private discussions. “She had had conversations with numerous other leaders all across the state, not all of whom were very supportive, some of whom were very skeptical that it was the right decision.”

But Harris, a “quantitative thinker” who had delved into the numbers, was characteristically unmoved, the advisor said.

“When she makes a decision, she moves forward with it. There’s not a lot of hand-wringing or second-guessing. She says, ‘I’ve looked at the data, I’ve made my decision.’”

Ultimately, the gambit paid off. The banks vastly increased their offer, from less than $4 billion to about $20 billion, Harris has said.

The deal wasn’t perfect. While intended to keep Californians in their homes, about half of the debt relief ended up covering short sales, in which banks accepted losses after allowing owners to sell homes for less than what they owed. Nonetheless, the deal became one of Harris’ signature accomplishments — and still wins her praise.

In 2011, Pamela Barrett and her late husband, John, were at risk of losing their home in Shandon, in San Luis Obispo County, after Barrett’s hair salon started losing clients amid the worsening economy. Barrett, now 72, said she tried to work with her lender, Bank of America, to find a path forward, but with no success.

Desperate, she and John — an artist on disability — began writing letters to anyone who might help, including elected officials. The only response came from Harris’ office, Barrett said, which told her to hang on.

Soon after, Barrett said she got a letter from Bank of America offering a loan modification that erased the interest on a large portion of their debt and allowed them to start making much smaller payments. Today, she said, she is retired and still living in her home — and gives Harris much of the credit.

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

23 minutes ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement.

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting. ”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Politics

Power, politics and a $2.8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

Published

1 hour ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Power, politics and a .8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.

Politics

Where Iran’s ballistic missiles can reach — and how close they are to the US

Published

12 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Where Iran’s ballistic missiles can reach — and how close they are to the US

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump warned that Iran is working to build missiles that could “soon reach the United States of America,” elevating concerns about a weapons program that already places U.S. forces across the Middle East within range.

Iran does not currently possess a missile capable of striking the U.S. homeland, officials say. But its existing ballistic missile arsenal can target major American military installations in the Gulf, and U.S. officials say the issue has emerged as a key sticking point in ongoing nuclear negotiations.

Here’s what Iran can hit now — and how close it is to reaching the U.S.

What Iran can hit right now

A map shows what is within range of ballistic missiles fired from Iran. (Fox News)

Iran is widely assessed by Western defense analysts to operate the largest ballistic missile force in the Middle East. Its arsenal consists primarily of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles with ranges of up to roughly 2,000 kilometers — about 1,200 miles.

That range places a broad network of U.S. military infrastructure across the Gulf within reach.

Among the installations inside that envelope:

IRAN SIGNALS NUCLEAR PROGRESS IN GENEVA AS TRUMP CALLS FOR FULL DISMANTLEMENT

Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, forward headquarters for U.S. Central Command.
Naval Support Activity Bahrain, home to the U.S. 5th Fleet.
Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, a major Army logistics and command hub.
Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, used by U.S. Air Force units.
Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.
Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.
Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, which hosts U.S. aircraft.

U.S. forces have drawn down from some regional positions in recent months, including the transfer of Al Asad Air Base in Iraq back to Iraqi control earlier in 2026. But major Gulf installations remain within the range envelope of Iran’s current missile inventory.

Israel’s air defense targets Iranian missiles in the sky of Tel Aviv in Israel, June 16, 2025. (MATAN GOLAN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

Multiple U.S. officials told Fox News that staffing at the Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain has been reduced to “mission critical” levels amid heightened tensions. A separate U.S. official disputed that characterization, saying no ordered departure of personnel or dependents has been issued.

At the same time, the U.S. has surged significant naval and air assets into and around the region in recent days.

The USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group is operating in the Arabian Sea alongside multiple destroyers, while additional destroyers are positioned in the eastern Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf.

The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group is also headed toward the region. U.S. Air Force fighter aircraft — including F-15s, F-16s, F-35s and A-10s — are based across Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, supported by aerial refueling tankers, early warning aircraft and surveillance platforms, according to a recent Fox News military briefing.

Iran has demonstrated its willingness to use ballistic missiles against U.S. targets before.

In January 2020, following the U.S. strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. positions in Iraq. Dozens of American service members were later diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries.

That episode underscored the vulnerability of forward-deployed forces within reach of Iran’s missile arsenal.

Can Iran reach Europe?

Most publicly known Iranian missile systems are assessed to have maximum ranges of around 2,000 kilometers.

Depending on launch location, that could place parts of southeastern Europe — including Greece, Bulgaria and Romania — within potential reach. The U.S. has some 80,000 troops stationed across Europe, including in all three of these countries.

Iran is widely assessed by Western defense analysts to operate the largest ballistic missile force in the Middle East. (Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Reaching deeper into Europe would require longer-range systems than Iran has publicly demonstrated as operational.

Can Iran hit the US?

IRAN NEARS CHINA ANTI-SHIP SUPERSONIC MISSILE DEAL AS US CARRIERS MASS IN REGION: REPORT

Iran does not currently field an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of striking the U.S. homeland.

To reach the U.S. East Coast, a missile would need a range of roughly 10,000 kilometers — far beyond Iran’s known operational capability.

However, U.S. intelligence agencies have warned that Iran’s space launch vehicle program could provide the technological foundation for a future long-range missile.

In a recent threat overview, the Defense Intelligence Agency stated that Iran “has space launch vehicles it could use to develop a militarily-viable ICBM by 2035 should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.”

That assessment places any potential Iranian intercontinental missile capability roughly a decade away — and contingent on a political decision by Tehran.

U.S. officials and defense analysts have pointed in particular to Iran’s recent space launches, including rockets such as the Zuljanah, which use solid-fuel propulsion. Solid-fuel motors can be stored and launched more quickly than liquid-fueled rockets — a feature that is also important for military ballistic missiles.

Space launch vehicles and long-range ballistic missiles rely on similar multi-stage rocket technology. Analysts say advances in Iran’s space program could shorten the pathway to an intercontinental-range missile if Tehran chose to adapt that technology for military use.

For now, however, Iran has not deployed an operational ICBM, and the U.S. homeland remains outside the reach of its current ballistic missile arsenal.

US missile defenses — capable but finite

The U.S. relies on layered missile defense systems — including Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Patriot and ship-based interceptors — to protect forces and allies from ballistic missile threats across the Middle East.

These systems are technically capable, but interceptor inventories are finite.

During the June 2025 Iran-Israel missile exchange, U.S. forces reportedly fired more than 150 THAAD interceptors — roughly a quarter of the total the Pentagon had funded to date, according to defense analysts.

The economics also highlight the imbalance: open-source estimates suggest Iranian short-range ballistic missiles can cost in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece, while advanced U.S. interceptors such as THAAD run roughly $12 million or more per missile.

Precise inventory levels are classified. But experts who track Pentagon procurement data warn that replenishing advanced interceptors can take years, meaning a prolonged, high-intensity missile exchange could strain stockpiles even if U.S. defenses remain effective.

Missile program complicates negotiations

The ballistic missile issue has also emerged as a key fault line in ongoing diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Iran’s refusal to negotiate limits on its ballistic missile program is “a big problem,” signaling that the administration views the arsenal as central to long-term regional security.

While current negotiations are focused primarily on Iran’s nuclear program and uranium enrichment activities, U.S. officials have argued that delivery systems — including ballistic missiles — cannot be separated from concerns about a potential nuclear weapon.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Iranian officials, however, have insisted their missile program is defensive in nature and not subject to negotiation as part of nuclear-focused talks.

As diplomacy continues, the strategic reality remains clear: Iran cannot currently strike the U.S. homeland with a ballistic missile. But U.S. forces across the Middle East remain within range of Tehran’s existing arsenal — and future capabilities remain a subject of intelligence concern.