Corrections: May 28, 2025
A picture caption with an article on Friday about the Senate's vote to block California's plan to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles misstated the name of an observatory in Los Angeles. It is the Griffith Observatory, not Griffin.
An article on Monday about the path Democrats are searching for after their losses in the 2024 election misstated the gender of a Democrat in Georgia who had spoken this year with Anat Shenker-Osorio, a Democratic researcher. The person was a man, not a woman.
Because of an editing error, an article on Monday analyzing the off-season moves of the 12 teams in the 2024 College Football Playoff reversed the surnames of two former Penn State players. They are Tyler Warren and Abdul Carter, not Tyler Carter and Abdul Warren.
A video game review on May 16 about Doom: The Dark Ages misidentified the composer of the soundtrack for the game. It was composed by the team known as Finishing Move, not Mick Gordon.
Because of an editing error, an article on Saturday about new comedy specials available to stream misidentified the woman who told Sarah Silverman her hair was dry. It was her mother, not her stepmother.
An article on Tuesday about the near completion of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in Los Angeles referred incorrectly to the museum's acquisition of Judith Baca's monumental mural 'The History of California.' The museum acquired the archive for the mural, but not the mural itself.
An article on Tuesday about the methods that archaeologists are using to map some of the dozens of sunken vessels in Lake Ontario misidentified the prevailing flow of the St. Lawrence River. A ship would have sailed up the river en route to Oswego, not down.
Errors are corrected during the press run whenever possible, so some errors noted here may not have appeared in all editions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Washington Post columnist claims Rising Lion op. destroyed Iranian attempts to develop EMP weapon
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders had allegedly encouraged the efforts to develop EMP weapons because it wouldn't violate Khamenei's fatwa. Israel's Operation Rising Lion may have disrupted Iranian efforts to construct an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon, a nuclear fusion bomb, and a standard fission warhead, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius claimed in an op-ed published Saturday, citing Israeli sources. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leaders had allegedly encouraged the efforts to develop EMP weapons because it wouldn't violate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons, Israeli sources allegedly told Ignatius. An EMP weapon is designed to generate a powerful burst of electromagnetic radiation, capable of disrupting or damaging electronic equipment and infrastructure, according to a fact sheet published by the Washington State Department of Health's Division of Environmental Health Office of Radiation Protection. Israel's military successes in Iran Israeli attacks also reportedly destroyed 3,000 ballistic missiles and 80% of its 500 missile launchers. The unnamed Israeli source claimed that Tehran had aims to grow its ballistic missile stockpile to at least 8,000 before the war, necessitating the strikes. Despite intelligence, Israel was reportedly surprised by the number of solid-fuel missiles in Tehran's possession. Sources also claimed that, beyond assassinating many of the masterminds behind Tehran's nuclear programs, there were hopes that the strikes would dissuade scientists from joining the programs in the future, knowing that doing so would put targets on their backs. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iran and Europeans hold 'frank' nuclear talks with UN sanctions looming
Iran would need to make commitments on key issues, including eventual talks with Washington, full cooperation with the UN's IAEA, and accounting for 400 kg of its enriched uranium. Iran said it would continue nuclear talks with European powers after "serious, frank, and detailed" conversations on Friday, the first such face-to-face meeting since Israel and the US bombed Iran last month. Before the meeting in Istanbul, Iran also pushed back on suggestions of extending the United Nations resolution that ratifies a 2015 deal, nearing expiry, that was designed to curb its nuclear program. Delegations from the European Union and the so-called E3 group of France, Britain, and Germany met Iranian counterparts for about four hours at Iran's consulate for talks that the UN nuclear watchdog said could provide an opening to resume inspections in Iran. Iranians and Europeans express Ideas on sanctions relief and nuclear issue Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said afterward that both sides had presented specific ideas on sanctions relief and the nuclear issue. "While seriously criticizing their stances regarding the recent war of aggression against our people, we explained our principled positions, including on the so-called snapback mechanism," he said. "It was agreed that consultations on this matter will continue." The European countries, along with China and Russia, are the remaining parties to the 2015 deal - from which the US withdrew in 2018 - which lifted sanctions on Iran in return for restrictions on its nuclear program. A deadline of Oct. 18 is fast approaching when the resolution governing that deal expires. At that point, all UN sanctions on Iran will be lifted unless the "snapback" mechanism is triggered at least 30 days before. This would automatically reimpose those sanctions, which target sectors from hydrocarbons to banking and defense. To give time for this to happen, the E3 have set a deadline of the end of August to revive diplomacy. Diplomats say they want Iran to take concrete steps to convince them to extend the deadline by up to six months. Europeans want nuclear commitment from Iran Iran would need to make commitments on key issues, including eventual talks with Washington, full cooperation with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and accounting for 400 kg (880 pounds) of near-weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, whose whereabouts are unknown since last month's strikes. Before the talks, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson had said Tehran considered talk of extending UN Security Council Resolution 2231 to be "meaningless and baseless." IAEA head Rafael Grossi said he was optimistic that nuclear inspection visits might be able to restart this year and that it was important to discuss the technical details now. "We need to agree on where to go, how to do it. We need to listen to Iran in terms of what they consider should be the precautions to be taken," he told reporters in Singapore. The United States held five rounds of talks with Iran prior to its airstrikes in June, which US President Donald Trump said had "obliterated" a program that Washington and its ally Israel say is aimed at acquiring a nuclear bomb. However, NBC News has cited current and former US officials as saying a subsequent US assessment found that while the strikes destroyed most of one of three targeted nuclear sites, the other two were not as badly damaged. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon and says its nuclear program is meant solely for civilian purposes. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Behind the curtain: Iran's unseen influence on Gaza talks
The ceasefire deal that was thought to be imminent following the IDF's success in Iran has collapsed. Instead of giving Hamas the green light to deal, it seems that Tehran sent word to double down. Just a month ago, in the immediate aftermath of the IDF's success in Iran and ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington, there was a real sense in the air – among policymakers, journalists, and diplomats – that a hostage-ceasefire deal with Hamas was finally within reach. US President Donald Trump spoke of imminent good news, as did his envoy Steve Witkoff. Egyptian and Qatari negotiators talked about positive movement. Israeli officials signaled that Hamas was softening its stance, and that Israel was as well. The atmosphere was charged with cautious optimism. This time, the sense was, it's real. But it wasn't. Looking back, it's worth unpacking why that optimism turned out to be misplaced: yet another false peak in a long series of dashed hopes. A key driver of that misplaced confidence was the assumption that the blows dealt to Iran – military, symbolic, and operational – would echo in Gaza. That after being struck by Israel and the US, Iran would be too weakened to continue backing Hamas with the same intensity. And that Hamas, sensing the shifting balance of power, would show more flexibility. Netanyahu himself said as much on June 22: the campaign in Iran, he declared, would 'help us expedite our victory and the release of all our hostages.' Trump echoed the message a couple of days later. Why would an attack on Iran move the needle in Gaza? Because of a belief that Iran's loss was Hamas's loss, and that the Islamic Republic's defeat would translate into Hamas's pliability. There were some reasons to think this was plausible. In addition to denigrating Iran's nuclear and missile stockpiles and production capabilities, the strike on the Islamic Republic killed key military figures, including Saeed Izadi, a senior Revolutionary Guard officer who coordinated with Hamas. The thinking was straightforward: cut off the head of the octopus, and the tentacles – Iran's proxies – will flail. With Iran momentarily reeling, the logic went, Hamas would sense that it was now on its own and seek an exit. The feeling was that the shockwaves of the attack would loosen Hamas's grip and push it toward a deal, and that the fear of being left without a sponsor – or being the next one to be steamrolled – would spur a shift in their negotiating posture. But that's not what happened. Failure to reach a deal Netanyahu travelled to Washington and returned home, but no deal was struck. The momentum, such as it was, dissipated. Talks in Doha continued, but progress stalled. The flexibility expected from Hamas never materialized. Instead, it was Israel that appeared to bend. The thinking behind that Israeli flexibility, according to some observers, was strategic: now that Israel had clearly demonstrated its overwhelming military might – on global display for all to see – it no longer needed to fear that a deal with Hamas would be perceived as capitulation. Giving up certain demands, like holding onto the Morag corridor, wouldn't erode deterrence, because deterrence had already been so forcefully reestablished in Iran. In this light, the logic ran, Israel could afford to show compromise. And it did. But Hamas didn't respond in kind. Why not? Earlier this week, during a press conference in Scotland, Trump offered his take: Iran. 'I will say that Iran, I think, interjected themselves in this last negotiation,' Trump told reporters on Monday. 'I think they got involved in this negotiation, telling Hamas and giving Hamas signals and orders, and that's not good. That's not good.' In other words, rather than pulling back, Iran seems to have doubled down. Instead of giving Hamas the green light to deal, Trump left the impression that Tehran sent word to dig in. But why would a wounded Iran sabotage a potential ceasefire deal in Gaza? For one, to avoid losing what remains of one of its key regional proxies. Iran has spent years – decades – building up Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups to surround Israel in what it calls the 'axis of resistance.' That axis has taken heavy hits: Hezbollah has been severely degraded, Syria is no longer an uncontested Iranian playground, and Hamas – though still fighting – is a shadow of what it was before October 7. Still, Tehran has not given up on the strategy, and it certainly doesn't want to lose Hamas entirely or allow it to be stripped of military power. Second, the ongoing war in Gaza keeps the pressure squarely on Israel. Images of hungry Gazans, aid trucks mobbed, and malnourished children dominate the headlines. That narrative – one of Gazans suffering under Israeli siege – shifts the spotlight away from Iran. Since the IDF and US strikes on Iran in June, Tehran has faced internal unrest, economic turmoil, and rising dissent. The longer the world focuses on Gaza – on the humanitarian crisis, on Israel's actions – the less attention is paid to what's happening inside Iran. For a regime worried about instability at home, this is no small thing. Third, there's the Saudi angle. One of Iran's overriding regional goals is to prevent normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have said repeatedly that normalization depends on a ceasefire in Gaza and progress toward a Palestinian state. As long as the war drags on, there is no normalization. For Tehran, prolonging the conflict is a way of blocking what would be a strategic nightmare: a US-brokered Israeli-Saudi alliance. And finally, there's the simple cost-benefit calculus. Iran has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Hamas over the years in cash, weapons, and training. If the terrorist group were now to strike a deal that stripped it of its ability to govern or wage war, that investment would be completely lost. From Iran's perspective, a hobbled proxy is still better than no proxy at all. Not surprisingly, Iran denied any interference. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei rejected Trump's accusations as 'absolutely baseless' and 'a form of projection and evasion of responsibility and accountability.' He added that Hamas negotiators 'do not need the intervention of third parties' and that Hamas 'recognizes and pursues the interests of the oppressed people of Gaza in the most appropriate manner.' But the denial rang a bit too loudly. As Shakespeare might have put it, the spokesman protests too much. A month ago, the talk was about momentum. Iran had been knocked back, and the assumption was that Hamas would soon follow. That hasn't happened. The optimism of June has given way to the stalemate of July. If Trump is right, and Iran has indeed inserted itself into the talks, then there's an important lesson here: when it comes to Hamas, the levers of power aren't necessarily in the tunnels of Gaza or the luxury hotel suites of Doha, but 1,500 kilometers to the east in Tehran. And if that's the case, then the assumptions driving this process and what it will take to move Hamas need a serious rethinking. Solve the daily Crossword
