Israel-Iran conflict: Senior US Democrat condemns Tel Aviv's 'reckless escalation'
senators
sharply criticized US ally
Israel
on Thursday for its strikes on Iran, as the White House distanced itself from the attack but Republican senators voiced gratitude to Israel.
"Israel's alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence," Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island said in a statement.
His comment came after Israel carried out a "preemptive" strike against Tehran's nuclear and military sites, in defiance of a call from US
President Donald Trump
to refrain from attacking Iran.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Tan Dinh: Unsold Furniture Liquidation 2024 (Prices May Surprise You)
Unsold Furniture | Search Ads
Learn More
Undo
Reed, the top
Democrat
on the US Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that the "strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians but the stability of the entire Middle East and the safety of American citizens and forces."
"While tensions between
Israel and Iran
are real and complex, military aggression of this scale is never the answer," he insisted.
Live Events
"I urge both nations to show immediate restraint, and I call on
President Trump
and our international partners to press for diplomatic de-escalation before this crisis spirals further out of control."
Other Democrats also voiced alarm.
"This action ordered by
Prime Minister
Netanyahu appears to deliberately undermine ongoing American diplomatic negotiations about Iran's nuclear program," Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey said on X.
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut agreed.
"This is a disaster of Trump and Netanyahu's own making, and now the region risks spiraling toward a new, deadly conflict," he warned on X.
He also took a political jab at the US president, insisting that Israel's decision to attack "is further evidence of how little respect world powers -- including our own allies -- have for President Trump."
Republican senators responded as well, but with a very different tone.
Tom Cotton of Arkansas insisted on X that "Iran is the world's worst state sponsor of
terrorism
, has the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands, and is rushing to build not only nuclear weapons, but also missiles that can strike the United States."
"We back Israel to the hilt, all the way."
Ted Cruz of Texas agreed.
"Israel is doing a favour to America right now by taking out Iran's nuclear capacity," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Two-thirds of the Department of Justice unit defending Trump's policies in court have quit
The U.S. Justice Department unit charged with defending against legal challenges to signature Trump administration policies - such as restricting birthright citizenship and slashing funding to Harvard University - has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, according to a list seen by Reuters. Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters. The tally has not been previously reported. Using court records and LinkedIn accounts, Reuters was able to verify the departure of all but four names on the list. Reuters spoke to four former lawyers in the unit and three other people familiar with the departures who said some staffers had grown demoralized and exhausted defending an onslaught of lawsuits against Trump's administration. "Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?" by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Saidpur: 1 Trick to Reduce Belly Fat? Home Fitness Hack Shop Now Undo Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress. The Trump administration has broadly defended its actions as within the legal bounds of presidential power and has won several early victories at the Supreme Court . A White House spokesperson told Reuters that Trump's actions were legal, and declined to comment on the departures. Live Events "Any sanctimonious career bureaucrat expressing faux outrage over the President's policies while sitting idly by during the rank weaponization by the previous administration has no grounds to stand on," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. The seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures. Three of them said some career lawyers feared they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court, a violation of ethics rules that could lead to professional sanctions. All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics and avoid retaliation. A Justice Department spokesperson said lawyers in the unit are fighting an "unprecedented number of lawsuits" against Trump's agenda. "The Department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue to defend the President's agenda to keep Americans safe," the spokesperson said. The Justice Department did not comment on the departures of career lawyers or morale in the section. Some turnover in the Federal Programs Branch is common between presidential administrations, but the seven sources described the number of people quitting as highly unusual. Reuters was unable to find comparative figures for previous administrations. However, two former attorneys in the unit and two others familiar with its work said the scale of departures is far greater than during Trump's first term and Joe Biden's administration. HEADING FOR THE EXIT The exits include at least 10 of the section's 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers. A spokesperson said the Justice Department is hiring to keep pace with staffing levels during the Biden Administration. They did not provide further details. In its broad overhaul of the Justice Department, the Trump administration has fired or sidelined dozens of lawyers who specialize in prosecuting national security and corruption cases and publicly encouraged departures from the Civil Rights Division. But the Federal Programs Branch, which defends challenges to White House and federal agency policies in federal trial courts, remains critical to its agenda. The unit is fighting to sustain actions of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency formerly overseen by Elon Musk; Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship and his attempt to freeze $2.5 billion in funding to Harvard University. "We've never had an administration pushing the legal envelope so quickly, so aggressively and across such a broad range of government policies and programs," said Peter Keisler, who led the Justice Department's Civil Division under Republican President George W. Bush. "The demands are intensifying at the same time that the ranks of lawyers there to defend these cases are dramatically thinning." The departures have left the Justice Department scrambling to fill vacancies. More than a dozen lawyers have been temporarily reassigned to the section from other parts of the DOJ and it has been exempted from the federal government hiring freeze, according to two former lawyers in the unit. A Justice Department spokesperson did not comment on the personnel moves. Justice Department leadership has also brought in about 15 political appointees to help defend civil cases, an unusually high number. The new attorneys, many of whom have a record defending conservative causes, have been more comfortable pressing legal boundaries, according to two former lawyers in the unit. "They have to be willing to advocate on behalf of their clients and not fear the political fallout," said Mike Davis, the head of the Article III Project, a pro-Trump legal advocacy group, referring to the role of DOJ lawyers in defending the administration's policies. People who have worked in the section expect the Federal Programs Branch to play an important role in the Trump administration's attempts to capitalize on a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of judges to block its policies nationwide. Its lawyers are expected to seek to narrow prior court rulings and also defend against an anticipated rise in class action lawsuits challenging government policies. Lawyers in the unit are opposing two attempts by advocacy organizations to establish a nationwide class of people to challenge Trump's order on birthright citizenship. A judge granted one request on Thursday. FACING PRESSURE Four former Justice Department lawyers told Reuters some attorneys in the Federal Programs Branch left over policy differences with Trump, but many had served in the first Trump administration and viewed their role as defending the government regardless of the party in power. The four lawyers who left said they feared Trump administration policies to dismantle certain federal agencies and claw back funding appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution or were enacted without following processes that were more defensible in court. Government lawyers often walked into court with little information from the White House and federal agencies about the actions they were defending, the four lawyers said. The White House and DOJ did not comment when asked about communications on cases. Attorney General Pam Bondi in February threatened disciplinary action against government lawyers who did not vigorously advocate for Trump's agenda. The memo to Justice Department employees warned career lawyers they could not "substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election." Four of the lawyers Reuters spoke with said there was a widespread concern that attorneys would be forced to make arguments that could violate attorney ethics rules, or refuse assignments and risk being fired. Those fears grew when Justice Department leadership fired a former supervisor in the Office of Immigration Litigation, a separate Civil Division unit, accusing him of failing to forcefully defend the administration's position in the case of Kilmar Abrego, the man wrongly deported to El Salvador. The supervisor, Erez Reuveni, filed a whistleblower complaint, made public last month, alleging he faced pressure from administration officials to make unsupported legal arguments and adopt strained interpretations of rulings in three immigration cases. Justice Department officials have publicly disputed the claims, casting him as disgruntled. A senior official, Emil Bove, told a Senate panel that he never advised defying courts. Career lawyers were also uncomfortable defending Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, according to two former Justice Department lawyers and a third person familiar with the matter. A longtime ally of Bondi who defended all four law firm cases argued they were a lawful exercise of presidential power. Judges ultimately struck down all four orders as violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal at least one case.
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump teases 'major statement' on Russia, Putin ahead of NATO meet
US President Donald Trump announced that he would have a 'major statement' on Russia on Monday. 'You'll be seeing things happen', Trump said, adding, 'I think I'll have a major statement to make on Russia on Monday.' US President Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin shake hands before attending a joint press conference..(AFP File) Trump, who had initially pinned equal blame on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for continuing the conflict with Russia, seems to have turned his displeasure squarely towards Vladimir Putin. What could be in Trump's statement? Axios reported that Trump would announce an 'aggressive' weapons plan for Ukraine, while Bloomberg reported a few days back that the POTUS was mulling new sanctions on Russia. All of this comes ahead of the meeting with NATO chief Mark Rutte next week, with the latter doing his best to curry favour with Trump at the recent summit at The Hague. Patriot missiles for Ukraine, but US won't foot bill Trump, who was earlier averse to sending military equipment to Ukraine, said that the US was sending Patriot missiles but declined to comment on the number. The President, however, said that the US would not be paying for them since they would give the missiles to NATO, which would foot the bill, and in turn, help Ukraine defend itself against the Russian onslaught. What Trump said about Putin 'Putin really surprised a lot of people. He talks nice and then he bombs everybody in the evening,' a disgruntled Trump said, adding, 'I thought he [Putin] was somebody that meant what he said. And he talked so beautifully, but then he bombed everyone at night. We don't like that.' Earlier in the week, the firebrand president noted, 'We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all of the time, but it turns out to be meaningless', as per CNN. Kremlin, meanwhile, on Friday said it awaited Trump's major statement, but didn't show signs of easing up on Ukraine, with Reuters reporting drone and missile attacks on western Ukraine that left two dead.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
39 minutes ago
- Business Standard
India exports to US to be more competitive after duty hike on China, others
Indian exports to the US will become more competitive following imposition of higher tariffs by the Trump administration on countries, including China, Canada, and Mexico, Niti Aayog said in a report on Monday. The Aayog in its third edition of 'Trade Watch Quarterly', said there will be significant opportunities for India in the US markets both in terms of the number of products and volume of the US market. "India is expected to gain competitiveness in 22 out of the top 30 categories (HS 2 level), representing a market size of $2,285.2 billion," the Aayog said. It further explained that China, Canada, and Mexico are the leading exporters to the US in these categories, therefore higher tariffs on these countries at 30 per cent, 35 per cent, and 25 per cent, respectively, will enhance India's competitiveness. The Aayog said India's competitiveness will remain unchanged in 6 out of 30 categories, amounting for 32.8 per cent exports to the US and 26 per cent of the US total imports, amounting to $26.5 billion. While for six product categories at HS 2 level, India faces a higher average tariff(between 1-3 per cent) which can be negotiated with the US, the Aayog said, "In 78 products, accounting for 52 per cent of India's exports and 26 per cent share in total US imports, India is expected to gain competitiveness." For 17 products (accounting for 28 per cent of India's export to the US) out of the top 100 products at the HS-4 level, the Aayog said India's competitiveness remains unchanged due to no change in tariff differential. The Aayog also pointed out that "India stands to gain in sectors with high tariff gaps vs China, Canada and Mexico -- minerals and fuels, apparel, electronics, plastics, furniture, and seafoods in a $1,265-billion market". Meanwhile, an Indian commerce ministry team has reached Washington for another round of talks on the proposed bilateral trade agreement (BTA), which will begin on Monday. Chief negotiator of India and special secretary in the department of commerce Rajesh Agrawal will join the team on Wednesday. The four-day talks will end on Thursday. India's deputy chief negotiator for the proposed BTA has reached Washington for the talks on the first phase of the BTA, the official said. The visit assumes significance as both sides have to iron out issues in sectors like agriculture and automobiles. It is also important as the US has further postponed the imposition of additional tariffs on several countries, including India, until August 1. Earlier this month, the Indian team was in Washington for talks, with negotiations taking place from June 26 to July 2. The team has once again reached the US for negotiations. India has hardened its position on the US demand for duty concessions on agri and dairy products. New Delhi has, so far, not given any duty concessions to any of its trading partners in a free trade agreement in the dairy sector. India is seeking the removal of this additional tariff (26 per cent). It is also seeking the easing of tariffs on steel and aluminium (50 per cent) and the auto (25 per cent) sectors. Against these, India has reserved its right under the WTO (World Trade Organization) norms to impose retaliatory duties. US President Donald Trump announced heavy tariffs on a number of countries, including India, on April 2. However, it was soon postponed for 90 days until July 9 and later to August 1. From July 7, the Trump administration has issued tariff letters to a number of its trading partners, including Bangladesh, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, South Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Serbia, and Tunisia. The US wants duty concessions on certain industrial goods, automobiles, especially electric vehicles, wines, petrochemical products, and agri goods, like dairy items, apples, tree nuts, and genetically modified crops. On the other hand, India is seeking duty concessions for labour-intensive sectors, such as textiles, gems and jewellery, leather goods, garments, plastics, chemicals, shrimp, oil seeds, grapes, and bananas in the proposed trade pact. The two countries are looking to conclude talks for the first tranche of the proposed bilateral trade agreement (BTA) by fall (September-October) this year. Before that, they are looking for an interim trade pact. India's merchandise exports to the US rose 21.78 per cent to $17.25 billion in April-May this fiscal year, while imports rose 25.8 per cent to $8.87 billion.
