The United States has launched a wide-ranging attack on Iran, with President Trump announcing that the bombing campaign could stretch over the course of the next week or last as long as "necessary." The attack comes after weeks of lobbying by an unusual pair of US allies in the Middle East: Israel and Saudi Arabia.
According to reports, the US and Israel carried out joint strikes on Iran overnight, targeting military command and control facilities, ballistic missile and drone launch sites, and military airfields. The strikes have sparked a heated debate in the US Senate, with candidates in competitive Senate races weighing in on the issue.
President Trump has offered immunity to members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), along with its military and police forces, in an apparent attempt to drive a wedge between the Iranian government and its security forces. "We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces, no longer want to be part of the regime," Trump said.
However, not all lawmakers are supportive of the president's actions. Former Vice President Kamala Harris has come out strongly against the strikes, accusing Trump of "dragging the United States into a war the American people don't want." Harris wrote in a statement that she is opposed to a "regime-change war in Iran," and emphasized the need for diplomacy and international cooperation to resolve the conflict.
The attack on Iran has also sparked concerns about the potential for escalation and the impact on regional stability. The US bombing campaign is expected to continue throughout the week, with Trump saying that the goal is to achieve "PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD."
As the situation in Iran continues to unfold, lawmakers and presidential candidates are grappling with the implications of the US attack. The debate is likely to continue in the coming days, with many calling for a more diplomatic approach to resolving the conflict.
In the Senate, the attack on Iran has become the latest flashpoint in competitive Senate races. Candidates are weighing in on the issue, with some expressing support for the president's actions and others calling for a more cautious approach.
The US attack on Iran is a complex and multifaceted issue, with far-reaching implications for regional stability and global security. As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the US and its allies will navigate the crisis, and what the ultimate outcome will be.
Sources:
- "Push from Saudis, Israel helped move Trump to attack Iran"
- "Iran attack becomes latest flashpoint in Senate races"
- "Trump offering immunity to IRGC, Iranian military and police forces"
- "Trump says Iranian bombing campaign could last a week or as long as ‘necessary’"
- "Harris opposed to ‘regime change’ war in Iran"
The United States has launched a wide-ranging attack on Iran, with President Trump announcing that the bombing campaign could stretch over the course of the next week or last as long as "necessary." The attack comes after weeks of lobbying by an unusual pair of US allies in the Middle East: Israel and Saudi Arabia.
According to reports, the US and Israel carried out joint strikes on Iran overnight, targeting military command and control facilities, ballistic missile and drone launch sites, and military airfields. The strikes have sparked a heated debate in the US Senate, with candidates in competitive Senate races weighing in on the issue.
President Trump has offered immunity to members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), along with its military and police forces, in an apparent attempt to drive a wedge between the Iranian government and its security forces. "We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces, no longer want to be part of the regime," Trump said.
However, not all lawmakers are supportive of the president's actions. Former Vice President Kamala Harris has come out strongly against the strikes, accusing Trump of "dragging the United States into a war the American people don't want." Harris wrote in a statement that she is opposed to a "regime-change war in Iran," and emphasized the need for diplomacy and international cooperation to resolve the conflict.
The attack on Iran has also sparked concerns about the potential for escalation and the impact on regional stability. The US bombing campaign is expected to continue throughout the week, with Trump saying that the goal is to achieve "PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD."
As the situation in Iran continues to unfold, lawmakers and presidential candidates are grappling with the implications of the US attack. The debate is likely to continue in the coming days, with many calling for a more diplomatic approach to resolving the conflict.
In the Senate, the attack on Iran has become the latest flashpoint in competitive Senate races. Candidates are weighing in on the issue, with some expressing support for the president's actions and others calling for a more cautious approach.
The US attack on Iran is a complex and multifaceted issue, with far-reaching implications for regional stability and global security. As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the US and its allies will navigate the crisis, and what the ultimate outcome will be.
Sources:
- "Push from Saudis, Israel helped move Trump to attack Iran"
- "Iran attack becomes latest flashpoint in Senate races"
- "Trump offering immunity to IRGC, Iranian military and police forces"
- "Trump says Iranian bombing campaign could last a week or as long as ‘necessary’"
- "Harris opposed to ‘regime change’ war in Iran"