China Issues Warning Over US Bombing of Iran
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
China accused the U.S. of violating the United Nations charter with its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and warned all parties involved in the conflict to prevent any further escalation.
"The U.S. attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN charter and has exacerbated tensions in the Middle East. The UN Security Council cannot sit idly by," said Lin Jian, spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, at a press briefing on Monday, June 23.
Lin said China, Russia, and Pakistan proposed a draft resolution to the UN Security Council calling for an "immediate and unconditional ceasefire".
"Together, we sent out the message of justice that reflects the strong call from the international community," Lin said.
"We hope council members can jointly support the draft resolution and enable the Security Council to play its role for the maintenance of international peace and security."
Lin added that "China urges parties to the conflict to prevent the escalation of the situation" and said Beijing is "willing to work with well-meaning sides to enhance communication and coordination and play a constructive role in restoring peace in the Middle East."
This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
an hour ago
- The Intercept
How Biden Is to Blame for Israel and the U.S.'s 12-Day War Against Iran
President Joe Biden meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on July 25, 2024, in Washington. Photo:Almost exactly 10 years ago, as the U.S. was the cusp of sealing a historic agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program, Barack Obama offered a warning to those who were working to tank the accord: 'Let's not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war — maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.' Obama struck the deal in 2015, but less than three years later, during President Donald Trump's first term, the U.S. unilaterally violated the agreement. After a short time, the deal was dead. Then came the war Obama had predicted. This month, Israel unleashed barrages of missiles, bombs, and drone attacks against Iranian military installations, nuclear facilities, and residential neighborhoods. Iran undertook retaliatory strikes at Israel. It would be easy to lay the blame this war almost entirely on Trump and Netanyahu. The U.S., after an apparent feint at diplomacy, then entered the fray, making a massive bombing run against Iranian nuclear facilities — and raising the specter of an all-out regional conflict or, worse, a world war. Thankfully, U.S. involvement was limited and, after 12 days of exchanges, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire. It would be easy to lay the blame this war almost entirely on Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For decades, Netanyahu has sought to ensnarl the U.S. in a direct war with Iran — and in Trump he seemed to have found one, just as Trump acquiesced to Netanyahu's catastrophic demand that the U.S. tear up Obama's Iran deal. While this is indeed true, it risks letting off the hook the people who could have restored Obama's nuclear deal with Iran and helped avoid this new nightmare scenario. Some blame for the war, for the dead civilians, and for the instability wrought on the lives of people in the Middle East belongs to President Joe Biden. Biden, who served as Obama's own vice president, squandered the chance to correct course and avert the crisis unfolding today. When Biden came into office in 2021, he had a laundry list of Trump excesses that he pledged to undo in his effort to restore normalcy. He made good on some of those promises — ending policies like the travel ban and returning to the Paris climate accord with the stroke of a pen on day one of his presidency. Biden's commitment to return to the Iran nuclear deal, his advisers said, would be more complicated. The new president and his team suggested that a precondition for a U.S. return would be for Iran to address steps it had taken to expand its nuclear work in retaliation for the U.S. violating the accord, rather than the U.S. simply restoring its own compliance with the obligations it had violated. This prompted weeks of back and forth and took time off the negotiations clock that neither party could afford. The delay didn't only affect prospects for a deal itself but had a wider effect on regional politics. Many observers thought the new administration understood the need to move swiftly to restore the deal before rapidly approaching Iranian presidential elections that summer. The elections could return hard-liners who had vigorously opposed the nuclear deal back into power. Understanding as much, Biden was sure to seize the initiative — and wouldn't fall for the advice of those arguing the president should 'use Trump's leverage' to force a 'better deal.' Surely, Biden wouldn't bide his time and allow opponents of the deal to tie his hands. Rather than urgently restore U.S. commitments under the agreement, however, Biden ordered that his advisers 'keep the Middle East off his desk' as he focused on his domestic agenda. Advisers like Brett McGurk, who has been advocating for and celebrating America's entry into Israel's war on Iran on CNN over the past two weeks, dutifully complied. Negotiations started, but they were circular, undermined by congressional hawks and Israeli sabotage — including a 2021 Israeli attack on Iran's Natanz nuclear facility just as negotiations were finally getting underway. Ultimately, Biden's team missed the window for a deal. Ultimately, Biden's team missed the window for a deal before a harsh critic of the original nuclear agreement was sworn in as Iran's president. Iran's nuclear program advanced by leaps and strides, with Iran becoming capable of producing enough enriched material for a nuclear weapon in a matter of weeks. By the end of Biden's term, his advisers were not debating a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue but rather were debating their own military strikes on Iran to set back its program. The nuclear crisis — imminently resolvable under Biden — was instead made worse throughout his term in office and then handed to Trump, who acted wisely at first in engaging in nuclear negotiations with Iran but eventually caved to Netanyahu. Now, hundreds of innocent people have been killed, destruction has been wrought in Israel and Iran, and we are much worse off in terms of Iran's capabilities — and intentions — than we were 10 years ago. Time will tell if Trump will embrace the diplomacy-first leadership he briefly demonstrated earlier this year, or if he will hew closer to Biden's feckless deference to Netanyahu. The latter course brings tremendous risks — like dragging the U.S. into an endless campaign of sending in more and more bombers to 'mow the lawn' in Iran because the diplomatic options, like Obama's deal, have been left in tatters. At the time of his nuclear deal, Obama was attacked by hawks for 'kicking the can down the road' because it merely set back Iran's nuclear capabilities by 15 years. Flash forward to today, and those same figures are cheering for Trump's military strikes on Iran as some decisive victory, even though most estimates say Israel and America's 12-day campaign only set Iran's nuclear program back by as little as a month. And unlike Obama's deal that imposed permanent restrictions and intrusive inspections over every element of Iran's enrichment program, Trump administration officials including Vice President JD Vance acknowledge that the bombing did not eliminate Iran's nuclear program but did drive Iran to move its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to a secret location. The lessons here are clear. Obama was borne out. The only demonstrable way to concretely limit Iran's nuclear program is through diplomacy. To fail at striking a deal is to risk war — possibly another disastrous American war in the Middle East. We should hold everyone to account whose limited imaginations — whose inability to take needed steps in the face of pro-Israel pressure — prevented a nuclear deal. If we are to learn the lessons of this 12-day war, that list must include Joe Biden.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Americans Are Moving From and To
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. With declining births and slower immigration following the Trump administration's strict deportation policies, domestic migration is bound to become an increasingly more important driver of U.S. population change, a recent study found. Florida and Texas, which have both been among the fastest-growing states in the nation for years, know what a positive impact a booming population can have on the local economy and job market, as well as what happens when this demographic explosion starts to wane. This year's State of the Nation's Housing report, released earlier this week by the Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) of Harvard University, found that the movement of Americans across the country has declined in 2024 all across the country, including in the states that are traditionally the most popular among movers. Last year, according to researchers, the nation reported the lowest rates of household mobility on record since the 1970s. Fewer Americans Are Moving Across the Country According to the latest Current Population Survey, about 8.3 percent of households (10.9 million) reported moving over the past year, a rate unchanged from a year earlier and down from 9.8 percent (12.6 million) before the pandemic, in 2019. In the same year, the homeowner mobility rate dropped to an all-time low of 3.1 percent, down from 3.7 percent in 2023 and 4.3 percent in 2019. That means U.S. homeowners made 24 percent fewer moves last year than in 2019, before the pandemic unleashed a surge of remote workers relocating from large, busy metropolises to smaller, more affordable towns. The South was the main beneficiary of this influx of people relocating to cheaper, more livable parts of the nation, with Florida and Texas adding hundreds of thousands of new residents over the past five years. The rate of domestic migration in Florida increased from 6.5 in 2019 to 8.1 in 2020, 11.4 in 2021, and reached a peak of 14.2 in 2022. In 2023, it fell to 8.2, and in 2024, it plunged to 2.7. In Texas, the rate increased from 4.2 in 2019 to 5.6 in 2020, 6.7 in 2021, 7.4 in 2022, and 6.3 in 2023, only to fall to 2.8 in 2024. While domestic migration remained the main source of population growth last year for 11 states, primarily in the South, net gains from migration fell in several of these states. In North Carolina, domestic migration decreased by 17 percent from the previous year, while in Tennessee, it decreased by 20 percent. Not only has in-migration—the process of relocating permanently to another part of one's home country—slowed down in the states that were most benefiting from it over the past five years, but out-migration from states that were hemorrhaging residents also slowed down last year. The number of residents moving out of California, for example, dropped by 30 percent in 2024, from −344,000 in 2023 to −240,000 in 2024. New York, another state where out-migration has surpassed in-migration in recent years, lost 121,000 people on net to interstate migration in 2024, about 30 percent fewer than in 2023 (−177,000) and 60 percent fewer than in 2022 (−296,000). Why Is Domestic Migration Declining? Since 2019, the cost of homeownership has skyrocketed nationwide, including in states that previously offered more affordable options. The median sale price of a typical U.S. home was $313,000 in the first quarter of 2019, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau; in the first quarter of 2024, it had surged to $426,800. As of the first quarter of 2025, $416,900. Mortgage rates have also gone through the roof since 2019. If historically low monthly payments during the pandemic spurred a homebuying frenzy nationwide, rates lingering around the 7 percent mark are now hindering demand, pushing buyers to the sidelines. The result is that packing up and moving to another state has become a trickier operation for many Americans, considering the overall cost of purchasing a new property. On top of that, return-to-office orders from companies that had been pressured to offer remote working options during the pandemic are now forcing many employees to go back to the same busy metros they had left. According to the JCHS study, last year there was a slowdown in moves out of urban centers across the U.S., which had accelerated during the pandemic. Net moves from dense urban counties, such as those in New York City, researchers found, fell for the third consecutive year in 2024, down 17 percent from the previous year. At the same time, net moves into suburban counties fell 16 percent year-over-year, while gains in smaller metros and non-metro counties declined by 12 percent and 31 percent, respectively, over the past year; however, these remain higher than pre-pandemic levels.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Voters Are Losing Faith With Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Once the cornerstone of his political strength, President Donald Trump's base is showing signs of erosion. The latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted June 20-23 among 1,590 adults, shows that Trump's approval rating among those who voted for him in 2024 stands at 83 percent, while 14 percent disapprove, giving him a net approval rating of +69 points, down from +80 last month. The poll had a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters on Air Force One while in flight from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to Amsterdam, Netherlands, on June 24, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters on Air Force One while in flight from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to Amsterdam, Netherlands, on June 24, 2025. Alex Brandon/AP Last month's poll was conducted before Trump carried out airstrikes against three key Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. In retaliation, Iran fired missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. A ceasefire between Iran and Israel was agreed to the same day, though tensions remain high. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have since accused Iran of violating the ceasefire and threatened to strike Tehran in response—an accusation Tehran denies. The rapid escalation has spotlighted the risks of deeper U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and highlighted the evolving nature of American foreign policy under Trump, who once promised to protect "America's vital interests" without engaging in "endless wars" overseas. The strikes appear to have triggered a shift in public attitudes—even among Republicans—with polls showing signs of declining support for Trump's agenda. Additional data from the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted June 21–23 among 1,139 respondents, reinforces the trend: 84 percent of Republicans said they approve of the president's job performance, down from 90 percent last month. The latest poll had a margin of error of +/-3.2 percentage points. Political analysts say Trump's declining approval ratings are tied to a growing disconnect between his actions and voter priorities—particularly after his recent military intervention in Iran. Thomas Gift, founding director of the University College London Centre on U.S. Politics, told Newsweek Trump's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities has unsettled many in the MAGA movement who expected him to avoid foreign entanglements. "Trump's recent actions in Iran have done little to reassure the MAGA base that he'll steer clear of another endless war in the Middle East," Gift said, noting that even former chief strategist Steve Bannon has warned the conflict could escalate into "U.S. boots on the ground." Gift added that a core tenet of Trump's 2024 message was that "'America First' meant staying out of foreign conflicts," but now "that promise is starting to ring hollow." Peter Loge, a political communications professor at George Washington University and former Obama advisor, told Newsweek Trump's approval ratings are falling for broader reasons as well. "Trump's numbers are down because that's how public opinion works," Loge said. "He is pursuing policies people don't like, while ignoring things people care about." He pointed to "thermostatic politics"—the idea that voters often react against the party in power, even when it does what they asked for—as a key factor. "Trump started in a weak position with a lot of soft support," Loge explained. "That he is getting less popular is unsurprising." Loge added that many of Trump's headline policies—such as sending troops into American cities or escalating military conflicts abroad—don't match what most voters are asking for. "Most voters mostly want things to work," he said. "They want to be able to afford gas and groceries, pay their medical bills, and know their kids have a shot at a good future." Instead, Trump's agenda—threatening Medicaid, risking inflation with tariffs, and engaging in costly foreign conflicts—"either ignores what most voters care about, or threatens to make those things worse." "President Trump likes people to pay attention to Donald Trump," Loge said. "Voters would rather pay attention to their families." It comes as polls show that a majority of Americans do not approve of U.S. airstrikes in Iran. The YouGov/Economist poll found just 29 percent think the U.S. should be carrying the strikes, while 46 percent said it should not. The Washington Post found modestly higher support for the U.S. military bombing Iran. In a poll, 25 percent of adults supported "the U.S. military launching airstrikes against Iran over its nuclear program," while 45 percent were opposed. The poll also found that 82 percent of Americans were either "somewhat" or "very" concerned about getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran. Analysis by pollster G. Elliott Morris showed that 21 percent of Americans said last week that they supported U.S. involvement in Iran, while 57 percent opposed. And it seems that Trump's decision to launch airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities has exposed deep divisions within the party. Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky called Trump's move unconstitutional. "This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution," Massie posted on X, formerly Twitter. Far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a Trump ally, struck a cautious tone after the bombing, posting on X: "Let us join together and pray for the safety of our U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East." But just 30 minutes before the announcement of the airstrikes, Greene voiced frustration: "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war... Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer." Former Trump adviser and War Room podcast host Steve Bannon was even more direct in his criticism, blasting the president for publicly thanking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the operation. "It hasn't been lost... that he thanked Bibi Netanyahu, who I would think right now – at least the War Room's position is – [is] the last guy on Earth you should thank," Bannon said. Bannon, who has long opposed U.S. military involvement in Iran, questioned Trump's reliance on intelligence reportedly provided by Israel, rather than U.S. sources. "I don't think we've been dealing from the top of the deck," he said, and described Trump's post-strike remarks as "very open-ended," adding: "I'm not quite sure [it was] the talk that a lot of MAGA wanted to hear." While Bannon insisted that "the MAGA movement will back Trump," he noted growing discomfort with the president's increasingly hawkish posture, recalling that opposition to "forever wars" was a defining issue in Trump's 2016 campaign. "One of the core tenets is no forever wars," Bannon told an audience in Washington days before the strike. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, also appeared to diverge from the president. Trump recently criticized the intelligence community's assessment that Iran had not taken the political decision to build a nuclear bomb, saying they were "wrong." Gabbard has denied any serious disagreement. Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing influencer, warned ahead of the strikes that Trump risked alienating his base. "Trump voters, especially young people, supported [him] because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war," he said. But after the strikes, Kirk appeared to soften, reposting a clip of Vice President JD Vance praising the pilots involved. "They dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine... Whatever our politics, we should be proud," Vance said. Nonetheless, polls suggest that Trump's MAGA base is largely supportive of the strikes. A recent J.L. Partners poll showed that support for U.S. military action against Iran is strongest among Trump's most devoted base. Two-thirds of self-identified "MAGA Republicans" (65 percent) back U.S. strikes, far surpassing support among "Traditional Republicans" (51 percent). Most Republican voters also view Israel's war with Iran as a shared American cause, with 63 percent saying "Israel's war is America's war"—a figure that rises to 67 percent among MAGA Republicans. And a new Washington Post/George Mason University survey finds Republican support for a strike rising from 47 percent to 77 percent. For comparison, political independents moved 10 points in Trump's direction, and Democrats stayed put. For pollster G Elliott Morris, there is a simple explanation for this. "Many Republicans do not hold isolationism as a value above their partisanship," he wrote in a blog post. "When push comes to shove, party loyalty and following the leader override some abstract commitment to staying out of foreign conflicts. If Trump decides that the MAGA movement should abandon isolationism altogether and invade Iran, then a large chunk of the movement will follow suit. The speed and scale of the shift in Republican opinion after Trump's decision to bomb Iran is a textbook example of this." He continued: "Of course, partisanship is not just a Republican phenomenon, but Trump's gravitational pull on opinion is unlike the force wielded by any other politician." Aaron Evans, president of Winning Republican Strategies, summed up why Republicans support Trump's actions in Iran. "Americans know President Trump did exactly what he promised: he stopped Iran from getting nuclear weapons without dragging us into another endless war," Evans told Newsweek. "While Democrats rushed to scream 'World War III,' Trump exposed their weakness and lack of seriousness on foreign policy. He showed strength, poise, and strategic discipline—doing what others only talk about: keeping nukes out of the hands of a terror regime while securing peace through strength. The media can spin, but voters see the truth. President Trump acted with precision, avoided war, and protected American lives. He's a man of action, not talk—and that's exactly why his base remains strong." However, the most recent YouGov/Economist poll found that only 47 percent of Trump 2024 voters think the U.S. should take active part in world affairs, while 37 percent disagreed and 19 percent said they are not sure.
