Wednesday Reads: Trump Considers Attacks on Iran and Other News

Posted: June 18, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Donald Trump, Foreign Affairs, Iran, Israel | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Good Day!!

Trump is reportedly considering joining Israel in bombing Iran’s nuclear sites. He’s once again ignoring the findings of the U.S. intelligence community, which has assessed that Iran is not actively developing a nuclear weapon. In fact he’s angry at his DNI Tulsi Gabbard for reporting that finding.

Shouldn’t Congress be involved in a decision to go to war? Back in 2002, George W. Bush went to Congress for authorization to attack Iraq, and obtained two AUMF’s (Authorization for Military Force against Iraq) before beginning the bombing in Afghanistan and Iraq. After Trump’s bizarre behavior at the G7 meeting in Canada this week, I for one do not feel comfortable having this insane person making a decision that could start World War III.

War on Iran?

W.J. Hennigan at The New York Times: Trump Might Get Us Into Another War. Where’s Congress?

As President Trump considers pulling American forces into a risky and unpredictable new war in the Middle East, it’s time for the legislative branch to step up. U.S. lawmakers should insist the president obtain a new war authorization from Congress before U.S. forces take any military action against Iran.

While Mr. Trump has so far refrained from committing U.S. military support to Israel’s air campaign, he also hasn’t ruled it out. On Tuesday he called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” and mentioned the open possibility of killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a statement posted to his social media site.

Smoke plumes billow following an overnight Israeli strike on Tehran on June 17. Atta KenareAFP via Getty Images

The Pentagon has already been moving military hardware, including ships and aircraft, toward the Middle East to give Mr. Trump a wider range of options should he decide to join the war. The United States is supporting Israel through other means as well, including defending against Iran’s drone and missile attacks.

But it is Congress’ constitutional right to declare war — not the president’s — despite the wide latitude given to the White House in recent decades to use military force during the war on terror. As Mr. Trump seriously considers joining Israel in this war, it is essential for elected lawmakers to reclaim their responsibility and put their names on record with a vote as to whether they’re willing to send American troops in harm’s way in yet another war in the Middle East.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, presidents have depended on open-ended legal authorizations from Congress to use military force against a wide array of militant groups in at least 22 countries. Days after the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and elsewhere, Congress passed a law known as an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or A.U.M.F., that President George W. Bush used to invade Afghanistan; a second A.U.M.F. was passed by Congress in 2002 to invade Iraq. President Barack Obama used those authorizations to expand the drone wars to places like Syria, Yemen and Somalia. President Joe Biden later used them to attack Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and Syria nearly a quarter-century later.

Hennigan argues that it is past time for Congress to take back it’s power to declare war.

“The founders expected the United States to comply with international law and for Congress to check a president’s lawless rush to war,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a University of Notre Dame law professor and an expert on international law. “Without a discussion and vote in Congress, this restraining mechanism is lost.”

Mr. Trump has already spent days publicly contemplating whether or not to join Israel in the conflict. Dr. O’Connell compared the situation to the past decisions to go to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and against Iraq in 2003. In both cases, Congress passed a war authorization law.

Those laws granted the commander in chief sweeping powers to send troops into combat and launch military operations with few restrictions, putting the United States on an open-ended war footing ever since. It’s unclear what legal rationale the Trump White House would use if it does decide to take military action against Iran, but legal scholars are skeptical that current legislation is sufficient.

“He absolutely needs congressional authorization if he intends to use military force against Iran,” said Oona Hathaway, a former Pentagon lawyer and professor at Yale Law School. “That clearly would not fall within either of the existing A.U.M.F.s.”

I’m not holding my breath waiting for Trump to respect the limits of his power under the Constitution.

The New York Times: Iran Is Preparing Missiles for Possible Retaliatory Strikes on U.S. Bases, Officials Say.

Iran has prepared missiles and other military equipment for strikes on U.S. bases in the Middle East should the United States join Israel’s war against the country, according to American officials who have reviewed intelligence reports.

The United States has sent about three dozen refueling aircraft to Europe that could be used to assist fighter jets protecting American bases or that would be used to extend the range of bombers involved in any possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Black smoke billows from the headquarters of Iranian state television in Tehran following an Israeli attack on June 16, 2025. Kyodo AP

Fears of a wider war are growing among American officials as Israel presses the White House to intervene in its conflict with Iran. If the United States joins the Israeli campaign and strikes Fordo, a key Iranian nuclear facility, the Iranian-backed Houthi militia will almost certainly resume striking ships in the Red Sea, the officials said. They added that pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria would probably try to attack U.S. bases there.

Other officials said that in the event of an attack, Iran could begin to mine the Strait of Hormuz, a tactic meant to pin American warships in the Persian Gulf.

Commanders put American troops on high alert at military bases throughout the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The United States has more than 40,000 troops deployed in the Middle East.

Two Iranian officials have acknowledged that the country would attack U.S. bases in the Middle East, starting with those in Iraq, if the United States joined Israel’s war.

Iran would also target any American bases that are in Arab countries and take part in an attack, the two officials said.

CNN live updates: Iran says it won’t surrender in Israel conflict as Trump weighs US involvement.

What you need to know

• Trump considers his options: US President Donald Trump said his patience with Iran has “already run out,” but he declined to say whether he has made a decision on US military intervention as the Israel-Iran conflict escalates. CNN previously reported that Trump is growing increasingly warm to using US military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

• Iran issues warning: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a national address that Iran will not surrender and warned that any US military intervention would result in “irreparable damage.” He also criticized Israel for launching its military campaign while Iran was engaged in nuclear talks with the United States.

• On the ground: Israel said its air force is striking military targets in Tehran. One strike occurred near a Red Crescent facility in the capital, according to Iranian state media. Meanwhile, Iran is experiencing a near-complete internet blackout, according to a watchdog organization.

Politico: Hegseth defers to general on Pentagon’s plans for Iran.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has given an unusual level of authority to a single general in the latest Middle East crisis — an Iran hawk who is pushing for a strong military response against the country.

U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Erik Kurilla has played an outsized role in the escalating clashes between Tehran and Israel, with officials noting nearly all his requests have been approved, from more aircraft carriers to fighter planes in the region.

General Erik Kurilla

The pugnacious general, who is known as “The Gorilla,” is overruling other top Pentagon officials and playing a quiet but decisive role in the country’s next steps on Iran, according to a former and current defense official, a diplomat, and a person familiar with the dynamic.

Hegseth’s apparent deference to Kurilla undermines the image the Pentagon chief has sought to project of a tough-talking leader who has vowed to reduce the influence of four-star generals and reassert civilian control.

“If the senior military guys come across as tough and warfighters, Hegseth is easily persuaded to their point of view,” said the former official. Kurilla “has been very good at getting what he wants.” [….]

Kurilla’s arguments to send more U.S. weapons to the region, including air defenses, have gone against Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, who have urged caution in overcommitting to the Middle East, according to the four people.

Read more at Politico.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has the temerity to disagree with Trump on whether Iran is actively developing a nuclear weapon, and Trump not happy with her.

AP: US spies said Iran wasn’t building a nuclear weapon. Trump dismisses that assessment.

Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.

The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.

But President Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of U.S. spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.

Trump’s statement aligned him more closely with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has described a nuclear-armed Iran as an imminent threat, than with his own top intelligence adviser. Trump met with national security officials, including Gabbard, in the Situation Room on Tuesday as he plans next steps.

The Independent: Trump is ‘losing confidence’ in Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard as he mulls removing her entire office, senior official says.

As he weighs joining Israel’s war against Iran, President Donald Trump reportedly finds himself at odds with his Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, with one White House official saying that he has “just been kind of down on her in general” of late.

Tulsi Gabbard

The president was recently incensed, according to Politico, by Gabbard’s decision to post a three-minute video on X in the early hours of June 10 in which she warned that “political elite and warmongers” are “carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,” placing the world “on the brink of nuclear annihilation.”

Trump is said to have been angered by the video, accusing Gabbard of going “off-message” and rebuking her for it in person.

One of the senior administration officials, quoted anonymously by Politico, said there is a growing perception within the West Wing that the former Hawaii Democratic congresswoman, who once ran for that party’s presidential nomination, “doesn’t add anything to any conversation.”

“I don’t think [Trump] dislikes Tulsi as a person,” said another. “But certainly the video made him not super hot on her… and he doesn’t like it when people are off message.” They added that “many took that video as trying to correct the administration’s position.”

More News and Opinion:

You undoubtedly heard that Kristi Noem has been hospitalized for an “allergic reaction.” People on social media have suggested this had something today with Botox or fillers, but that’s just mean.

CNN: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem transported to DC-area hospital after allergic reaction, DHS says.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was transported by ambulance on Tuesday to a hospital in Washington, DC, after an allergic reaction, the Department of Homeland Security said.

“Secretary Noem had an allergic reaction today. She was transported to the hospital out of an abundance of caution. She is alert and recovering,” said DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin.

CNN observed several Secret Service agents posted at several entrances outside the emergency room at the hospital where the secretary was admitted.

Noem, 53, who previously served as the governor of South Dakota and represented the state in Congress, was tapped to serve as President Donald Trump’s Homeland Security secretary just days after he was elected for a second term, positioning her as a critical member of his cabinet after he made immigration a major part of his campaign. She was confirmed for the role by the Senate in late January.

Since returning to office, Trump has pushed for an aggressive crackdown on immigration — ranging from deploying troops to the border to evoking wartime authority to deport undocumented migrants — and Noem has carried out the president’s agenda.

Josephine Harvey at The Daily Beast: ICE Barbie Visited Biohazard Lab With RFK Jr. Before Hospitalization.

Kristi Noem was hospitalized for an allergic reaction one day after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared a photo of them both visiting a biosafety lab that was temporarily shut down due to safety concerns.

Kristy Noem at the Biohazard lab at Ft. Detrick

“With @Sec_Noem and @SenRandPaul inspecting the biological hazard labs at Fort Detrick,” the Health and Human Services Secretary posted, sharing an image of himself with Noem and GOP Sen. Rand Paul at the Integrated Research Facility in Frederick, Maryland.

On Tuesday, Noem was taken to the hospital by ambulance for an “allergic reaction,” DHS’ Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin told the Daily Beast in a statement.

“She was transported to the hospital out of an abundance of caution. She is alert and recovering,” McLaughlin said.

It’s not clear what prompted the allergic reaction, and there’s nothing to suggest the incident was anything more than a bizarre coincidence.

More destruction from RFK Jr:

Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times: Why a Vaccine Expert Left the C.D.C.: ‘Americans Are Going to Die.’

In 13 years at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Fiona Havers crafted guidance for contending with Zika virus, helped China respond to outbreaks of bird flu and guided safe burial practices for Ebola deaths in Liberia.

More recently, she was a senior adviser on vaccine policy, leading a team that produced data on hospitalizations related to Covid-19 and respiratory syncytial virus. To the select group of scientists, federal officials and advocates who study who should get immunizations and when, Dr. Havers is well known, an embodiment of the C.D.C.’s intensive data-gathering operations.

On Monday, Dr. Havers resigned, saying she could no longer continue while the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dismantled the careful processes that help formulate vaccination standards in the United States.

“If it isn’t stopped, and some of this isn’t reversed, like, immediately, a lot of Americans are going to die as a result of vaccine-preventable diseases,” she said in an interview with The New York Times, the first since her resignation.

Dr. Havers, 49, cited an escalating series of attacks on federal vaccine policy by Mr. Kennedy. Three weeks ago, the health secretary announced in a minute-long video on X that the agency would no longer recommend Covid-19 vaccines for healthy children or pregnant women.

Last week, he fired all 17 members of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, saying without evidence that the group was beset with conflicts of interest and that a clean sweep was needed to restore public trust.

Mr. Kennedy went on to name eight new members, at least half of whom appear to share his antipathy to vaccines. Two have testified against vaccine makers in trials.

Trump appears to be winning his case against California over the National Guard.

The New York Times: Appeals Court Seems Inclined to Let Trump Control National Guard in L.A. for Now.

A federal appeals court appeared inclined on Tuesday to allow President Trump, against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom, to keep using California’s National Guard for now to protect immigration enforcement agents and quell protesters in Los Angeles.

Throughout a 65-minute hearing, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit signaled skepticism of the idea that the judiciary should second-guess Mr. Trump’s determination that deploying the state militia to Los Angeles is necessary to protect federal agents and buildings.

The hearing came at a time when local organizers have vowed to continue protesting against immigration raids, though demonstrations in downtown Los Angeles have quieted since the weekend.

A district court judge, Charles Breyer, determined last week that Mr. Trump’s use of the National Guard was illegal and temporarily ordered the president to return control of the forces to Mr. Newsom.

But the Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling, and the Ninth Circuit panel stayed the lower court decision while it considered the matter. It seemed likely on Tuesday that the panel, which consists of two appointees of Mr. Trump and one of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., would keep that stay in place.

The two Trump appointees, Judges Mark J. Bennett and Eric D. Miller, did the bulk of the talking. Both appeared skeptical of the Justice Department’s argument that courts have no ability to review Mr. Trump’s decision to invoke a statute allowing him to call up the Guard. But they also seemed inclined to find that the sometimes violent protests in Los Angeles were enough to defer to Mr. Trump’s decision.

Another Democratic politician was violently arrested by ICE yesterday.

Andrew Egger at The Bulwark: Trump’s Goon Squad Strikes Again.

Last Thursday, California Sen. Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from a Department of Homeland Security news conference, pushed to the ground, and handcuffed by authorities. If you thought the ensuing backlash might make federal agents more cautious about manhandling opposition politicians, you thought wrong.

Brad Lander being arrested by ICE goons

Yesterday, federal agents in New York City handcuffed another Democratic official: Brad Lander, the city comptroller and a current candidate for mayor. Video taken inside a New York immigration court showed Lander standing next to someone who ICE agents—some in plainclothes, some masked—were trying to take into custody. Lander repeatedly demanded to see a warrant, and kept an arm locked with the man as agents tried to take him away, walking in a scrum with them down the hallway. Moments later, agents placed Lander under arrest as well.

In a statement released after the encounter, the Department of Homeland Security preposterously claimed that Lander had been arrested “for assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer.” The latter claim was true; the former laughably false.

“No one is above the law,” the DHS statement went on, “and if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will face consequences.” The U.S. attorney’s office in New York seemingly disagreed. Lander—like Padilla last week—was released without being charged.

…the White House’s immigration enforcement mooks1plainly haven’t been instructed to avoid further high-profile clashes with Democratic officials. Lander—who, as we noted, is currently running for mayor—might well have been angling for a photo-op. But ICE agents were also all too happy to give him one, and DHS leadership was all too happy to lean into the story….on a similar note, the story continues the pattern of Trump’s federal law enforcement agencies publicly accusing people of criminal conduct that goes beyond what they’re willing to actually charge in court….

…put yourself in Lander’s shoes. Masked agents show up to whisk a migrant away. Maybe he’ll get to tell his family where he is, maybe he won’t. Maybe he’ll have the opportunity to speak to a lawyer or plead his case to a judge, maybe he won’t. And you think to yourself: Will there be a legal process? Or am I the very last person who has a chance to intervene on this person’s behalf?

That’s it for me today. What’s on your mind?