Tag: iran

Trump Says He Must Have a Say in Picking Iran’s New Leader

President Trump said in an interview with Axios on Thursday that he must have a say on who is chosen as Iran’s next leader following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, contradicting other administration officials who say the US’s goal is not regime change.

Trump made clear to Axios reporter Brak Ravid that Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has reportedly emerged as a frontrunner to replace his father, wouldn’t be acceptable to the US.

“They are wasting their time. Khamenei’s son is a lightweight. I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy [Rodriguez] in Venezuela,” the president said, referring to Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodriguez.

The US didn’t choose Rodriguez as Nicolas Maduro’s replacement, but she was the next in line as the vice president and has been willing to work with the US to stave off another attack. A much different dynamic is unfolding in Iran as the killing of Khamenei has not slowed Iran’s military response, and the country’s leadership shows no sign of backing down despite the massive US-Israeli bombing campaign, which has killed over 1,000 civilians.

Trump said that he wouldn’t accept any leader who continues Khamenei’s policies because it would result in the US launching another war within five years. “Khamenei’s son is unacceptable to me. We want someone that will bring harmony and peace to Iran,” he said.

Earlier this week, Trump said that all of the people he had in mind to replace Khamenei have been killed and acknowledged that in the end, Iran’s next leader could be “as bad” as Khamenei.

“The worst case would be we do this, and then somebody takes over who’s as bad as the previous person,” he said. “That could happen. We don’t want that to happen. It would probably be the worst — you go through this and then in five years, you realize you put somebody in who was no better.”

Keep reading

Pentagon in Talks on Buying Ukrainian-Made Interceptors To Counter Iranian Drones

The Pentagon is in talks on purchasing Ukrainian-made interceptors to counter Iranian drones, the Financial Times has reported, as senior US officials have told Congress that US forces in the Middle East are having more trouble intercepting Iran’s drones than expected.

The report said that at least one Gulf country was also in talks on acquiring Ukrainian-made drone interceptors as they been using advanced US Patriot missiles, which cost more than $4 million apiece. The Ukrainian systems are much cheaper and have been designed to counter the Russian version of Iran’s Shahed drones.

One Ukrainian official said that the talks were “sensitive” but that it was “obvious that there is a surge in interest in the Ukrainian drone interceptors, which can intercept the Shahed for a very low cost.” The Ukrainian drone interceptors cost a few thousand dollars to stop one Iranian Shahed drone, which is estimated to cost about $30,000 each.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said earlier this week that he has been in contact with Qatar and the UAE about the use of Ukraine’s anti-drone systems, though he expressed concern about Ukraine’s own stockpile.

“Ukraine’s expertise in countering ‘Shahed’ drones is currently the most advanced in the world,” he said. “However, any such co-operation aimed at protecting our partners can only proceed without diminishing our own defence capabilities.”

Ukraine’s anti-drone technology, which includes smaller drones and anti-drone guns, has struggled to intercept the Geran-3, a Russian-produced drone based on Iran’s Shahed-238 and powered by a jet engine.

Secretary of Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine told lawmakers this week that US forces will not be able to intercept all of Iran’s drones and that more US casualties are expected.

Since the US and Israel launched the war against Iran on Saturday, US Central Command has confirmed the deaths of six American soldiers, who were killed by an Iranian drone that hit a makeshift operations center in Kuwait. According to media reports, they had no notice or warning to evacuate before the drone struck.

Keep reading

Pentagon Prepares for Possibility That Iran War Will Last Through September

The US military is preparing for the possibility that the US-Israeli war against Iran lasts until September of this year, according to a report from POLITICO, far beyond President Trump’s initial four-week timeline.

The report said that US Central Command is asking the Pentagon to send more intelligence officers to its headquarters in Tampa, Florida, to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days, but likely through September.

The news of the Pentagon preparing for a long war comes as US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has said that the US is sending more forces to the Middle East and will be escalating its bombing campaign.

“More bombers, fighters are arriving just today. And now with complete control of the skies, we will be using 500-pound, 1000-pound, and 2000-pound GPS-and-laser-guided precision gravity bombs, which we have a nearly unlimited stockpile,” Hegseth said on Wednesday.

Hegseth has also declined to set a timeline on the war. “You can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be eight, it could be three,” he said. “Ultimately, we set the pace and the tempo. The enemy is off balance, and we’re going to keep them off balance.”

So far, more than 1,000 Iranian civilians have been killed by US-Israeli strikes, and at least six US soldiers have been killed by Iranian drone attacks. The Pentagon is working to get more missiles and air-defense munitions into the region, as its stockpiles have quickly dwindled after the first five days of war.

The POLITICO report also detailed how the State Department was scrambling to get stranded Americans out of the Middle East as the administration had no evacuation plan despite a months-long military buildup in the region and Trump’s constant threats to bomb Iran.

Keep reading

‘Cowardly and Despicable’: Hegseth Condemned for Sinking of ‘Defenseless’ Iranian Ship

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday was condemned for his boasts on Wednesday about sinking an Iranian military ship after allegations emerged that it was “defenseless” at the time it was torpedoed in international waters by a US submarine.

Military.com reported Thursday that the Iranian ship had been departing from a biennial multinational naval training exercise that it had been invited to participate in by the Indian government.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has so far remained silent on the US attack on the ship, but other politicians in India delivering sharp condemnations.

According to the Times of India, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi tore into Modi for not speaking up after the US torpedoed a boat that his government had invited into its waters.

“The conflict has reached our backyard, with an Iranian warship sunk in the Indian Ocean,” Gandhi said. “Yet the PM has said nothing. At a moment like this, we need a steady hand at the wheel. Instead, India has a compromised PM who has surrendered our strategic autonomy.”

In a social media post, former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said there was no way that the Iranian ship could have been perceived as any kind of military threat.

“I am told that as per protocol for this exercise ships cannot carry any ammunition,” he wrote. “It was defenseless… The attack by the US submarine was premeditated as the US was aware of the Iranian ship’s presence in the exercise to which the US navy was invited but withdrew from participation at the last minute, presumably with this operation in mind.”

Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim noted that, in addition to striking what appears to have been a defenseless boat, the US also didn’t help rescue any of the shipwrecked men who were aboard the vessel.

“The Sri Lanka Navy was left to pull the dead bodies from the water,” Grim commented. “I am hard pressed to think of any other nation throughout history that would do something so cowardly and despicable. We are genuinely in a league of our own, and American media—mostly shrugging off the bombing of a girls school and acting as if carpet bombing Tehran is a normal military tactic—is deeply complicit.”

Author Bruno Maçães also pointed to the decision to leave the shipwrecked crew at sea as an act of historic depravity.

“Really quite extraordinary that the US bombed an Iranian ship and then left the surviving sailors to drown,” Maçães wrote. “There are many many accounts of the Nazis or Imperial Japan saving survivors at sea. I see we have now dropped below that level.”

Mohamad Safa, executive director of PVA Patriotic Vision, an international multilateral organization with special consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council, said that the US attack on the Iranian ship constituted either a war crime or straight-up murder.

“What Pete Hegseth ordered the military to do violates international law,” he wrote. “The Iranian ship was near Sri Lanka, in international waters outside the combat zone and on a training exercise. Under the Geneva Conventions, you are obligated to rescue the crew of a ship that you sink during war. Abandoned any survivors and leaving them to drown is illegal and a war crime.”

Keep reading

The Misconception That Air Supremacy Has Been Achieved Over Iran

There are growing misconceptions that the U.S. and Israel have achieved total control of the airspace in Iran and sanitized the threat of ground-based air defenses to a degree that their forces have relatively free rein — commonly referred to as air supremacy. This is absolutely not true, nor has this been the outright claim of the U.S. military. It also should be of no surprise at this point in the campaign.

A lot of the commentary I try to provide for events like this is on X. It allows me to respond quickly to what is going on, and often that includes trying to swat down false narratives, some of which originate in the social media echo chamber and among general commentators/influencers, but also increasingly among the mainstream media. This is one of those times.

Moving as fast as possible from standoff attacks to stand-in (direct) attacks isn’t just about trying to conserve expensive long-range munitions. In fact, this is far from the primary concern. Doing so is absolutely essential to ramping up the frequency and amplitude of the air campaign. This is something we have been highlighting in our rolling coverage of the conflict for days.

Moving to direct strikes allows for a significant increase in the total volume of targets hit, as well as offering a broader array of effects to be brought to bear on those targets. Very deep-penetrating bunker-buster munitions, for instance, are typically not available in a standoff capability.

This transition to direct attacks has now begun.

Keep reading

Covering for International Abusers, Media Reverse Victim and Offender in Iran

People who study domestic violence have an acronym, DARVO, for the set of tactics abusers use to avoid accountability: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.

It’s that last tactic that came to mind while reading news reports of the United States and Israel’s unprovoked and illegal attack on Iran, and the assassination of Ali Khamenei, its leader. US corporate media frequently presented Iran as responsible for the predictably violent consequences of the US/Israeli aggression.

Sometimes the reversal is straightforward, as when an NBC News “analysis” (2/28/26) warned that “Iran’s Retaliatory Strikes Threaten an Escalation Across the Region”—as though it is Iran’s response, and not the ongoing attacks by the US and Israel, that poses a threat to the region.

Another NBC analysis (2/28/26), by Richard Engel, more subtly tried to pin the blame on Iran, noting in the headline that “Iran Is Now in Conflict With Pretty Much All of Its Neighbors.” Wrote Engel:

Today Iran has launched drones and missiles not only at Israel, but also at US military installations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq…. It puts Iran in a difficult position, because now it is at conflict with pretty much all of its neighbors.

Pretty much all of its neighbors, that is, except for Turkiye, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Azerbaijan said Iranian drones crashed in its territory on Thursday; Iran denies targeting the country.) And if we’re going to count Jordan as Iran’s “neighbor,” then Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as well. Aside from those, though, pretty much all of them.

The point of depicting Iran as “in conflict” with “pretty much all of its neighbors,” of course, is to paint it as the country that no one can get along with. In reality, the countries Iran isn’t getting along with are the ones allowing the US to use them as platforms for launching bombs and missiles at it—behavior that will put a damper on any relationship.

Keep reading

They Are Still Lying About Iraq

The lack of shame exhibited by the US government as it lies about Iraqi improvised explosive device (IED) attacks that killed thousands of American service members to justify its new war on Iran is breathtaking. President Trump led off his press conference today, the first since the attacks began Saturday morning, with this lie. Trump’s proxies on cable news, in the newspapers and online have been repeating it non-stop.

The lie is essentially that American soldiers were killed and wounded in Iraq at the orders of the Iranians. That the people responsible for blowing up American vehicles and sending home US soldiers in caskets or without body parts were Iranians, not Iraqis. The reality, of course, is that responsibility for those deaths and mutilations belongs to George W. Bush and every politician, general, government official, journalist, pundit and citizen who supported that war. I put myself into that disgraceful camp as someone who twice went voluntarily to that war.

This lie gets recycled whenever the prospect of war with Iran is present. For example, in 2019, the allegation appeared as the US imposed severe sanctions on Iran and labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization (the first time the US government designated a government or a military as a terrorist organization). These actions, following the unilateral abrogation of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran by the US, led to year-long tensions that culminated in the US assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, who the American government and press labeled as having “American blood on his hands”, and retaliatory Iranian missile attacks on US forces in Iraq.

To begin with, the majority of US service members killed and wounded in the occupation of Iraq were killed by Sunni resistance groups, NOT Shia resistance groups. Sunni groups accounted for more than 80% of American deaths. These Sunni groups did not receive any support from Iran. These Sunni groups, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, did get a great deal of support from persons and institutions throughout Sunni countries in the Middle East, especially from the Gulf monarchies, Saudi Arabia chief among them. Yet, in Washington, DC’s calculus, these states don’t have the blood on their hands that Iran does, even as 4 out of 5 Americans were killed by Iraqi Sunni groups.

Sunni groups did fight against Shia groups that may have had a relationship with Iran. The Shia groups also fought against each other. Some Shia groups fought against the Americans. The Americans killed and wounded by Shia groups using IEDs were killed and wounded by Iraqis, not Iranians. Yes, there was a small Iranian presence in Iraq, acting as advisors to the Shia groups. However, the Iranian role was dwarfed by organic Iraqi resistance to occupation and sectarian commitments to one side or the other in intra-Iraqi fighting.

Keep reading

Iranian warship hit by US torpedo was ‘defenceless’, former Indian official claims

An Iranian warship destroyed in a US torpedo strike on Wednesday was “defenceless” after taking part in an international naval exercise as a guest of the Indian navy, a former Indian official has claimed.

Former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said in a post on X that “the Iranian ship will not be where it was if we had not invited it to talk [sic] part in our Milan exercise.

“The Iranian naval personnel had paraded before our president,” he added.

The IRIS Dena, described as a destroyer, had taken part in an international naval exercise in India last month and was making its way back to Iran from Visakhapatnam, where the joint exercise ended on 25 February.

According to reports, the rules of the exercise stipulated that no ammunition was allowed on participating ships.

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister, Vijitha Herath, told the country’s parliament that the vessel was sailing outside Sri Lanka’s territorial waters on Wednesday when it sent a distress signal at 5:08 am local time.

Sri Lanka responded by sending naval ships and its air force to the endangered vessel. Around 87 bodies and 32 survivors were rescued, with some found to be “seriously injured,” Herath said.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the sinking illustrated that the US-Israeli war on Iran was stretching beyond its borders.

The Iranian ship “thought it was safe in international waters,” but “instead, it was sunk by a torpedo,” Hegseth said.

“America is winning, decisively, devastatingly and without mercy,” he added.

Keep reading

Israel’s Mass Murder of Palestinian Children Set Up the Iran School Bombing

On February 28, 2026, the last thing most of the now one hundred and sixty-eight dead elementary schoolgirls saw was a fleet of missiles fired by the US or Israel. Their coloring books were painted red, later retrieved by parents forced to identify their newly dismembered children.

Of course, I would be remiss not to mention Israel’s cutthroat, merciless attacks on Palestinian children during the Gaza genocide – a campaign that has fostered a climate of impunity among the upper echelons of Israel’s government, who appear to believe they can evade punishment for countless war crimes against innocent children. The estimated death toll of Palestinian children since October 2023 is a staggering 20,000, according to UNICEF. Twenty thousand innocent lives – children punished for the circumstances of their birth, for an identity they did not choose, for a conflict they did not create.

This, sadly, is what we’ve come to expect from modern-day Israel – some of the most heinous war crimes witnessed since the early 2000s. Schools and children are heavily protected under international humanitarian law, yet those protections seemingly never apply to Israel. The strike on this elementary school, filled with wide-eyed children eager to learn, crosses a universal moral boundary – because war does not suspend morality. In a just world, Israel would answer for this inhumane attack. But this world is dark, godless, and depraved.

This comes shortly after the IDF shot a fourteen-year-old Palestinian boy, Jad Jadallah, last winter – as reported by the BBC – and left him to bleed out, even blocking emergency vehicles from reaching him. Anyone could argue that Israel has been intentionally targeting children in its attacks.

Each of the one hundred and sixty-eight schoolgirls (ages 7–12) at Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ Elementary School had a future – a family, friends, dreams, creativity, and innocence. Last week, they were pulled from the rubble; their small bodies shattered by missiles that brought nothing but destruction and despair.

The longer Israel and the US are treated as above the law, the more tumultuous the world will become – especially in the Middle East. It is time for real accountability for Israel and Netanyahu before it is too late. This situation has long been volatile, but we are now on a one-way flight to the point of no return – where it becomes acceptable, perhaps even encouraged, to bomb elementary schools, starve children, and put bullets into skulls that should be filled with toys, dreams, and love.

Keep reading

Donald Trump’s Unjust and Unconstitutional War

Over the past weekend, some apologists for President Donald Trump’s recently ordered attacks on Iran argued that because Trump’s plans call for a quick strike, the attacks do not constitute a war. George Orwell is vindicated yet again.

These apologists believe that calling a war something else means it is not a war, and so moral and constitutional justifications are unnecessary.

No rational observer looking at 2,000-pound bombs being dropped on military targets and thousands of missiles being fired indiscriminately at both civilians and military personnel in Iran can conclude that these events constitute anything but a war.

That recognition triggers a series of analyses — moral, constitutional and legal.

The moral dimension addresses both the causes and the conduct of war.

The standard requirements for a just war are that war is a last resort to avoid truly imminent violence or profound massive injustice. It must be triggered by a legitimate authority, its purpose must be clear and just, and the damage it produces must not outweigh the evil it purports to eliminate. Its conduct must avoid killing non-combatants, and the weapons and tactics used must be proportionate to the war’s objectives.

Just war, of course, prohibits the employment of any weapons that fail to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.

Trump’s war in Iran fails all these. It was not commenced by a legitimate authority as Congress has not declared war on Iran. The president and his folks have not identified any imminent violence Iran was about to inflict upon the U.S. They have confused the public on the war’s purpose. Is it to force out the current Iranian government or to destroy its offensive weaponry and nuclear capabilities or — the newest condition — to eliminate its navy?

None of these is a just cause as the U.S. has no moral or legal basis for removing a foreign government or emasculating it in the face of its enemies. As for damage, we have seen already the killing of 150 little girls while at a school last weekend and the attacks on a Tehran hospital.

The failure of Trump’s war to comply even minimally with moral standards is also exemplified by the constitutional implications raised by a presidentially initiated war. When James Madison and his colleagues were addressing the war clauses in the Constitution, they were in easy agreement that if the president could both declare war and wage war, he wouldn’t be a president, he’d be prince.

Keep reading