Connect with us

World News

Are US, Iran already at war? on January 31, 2024 at 11:26 pm

Published

on

More than 160 attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, 37 clashes in the Red Sea with the Houthis — and now five dead U.S. service members. America’s mounting proxy battle with Iran over the past three months is spurring questions about whether the countries are at war. 

It’s also raising questions about whether the U.S. can continue to hit back at Iranian-backed militia groups without seeking congressional authorization. 

The Biden administration argues it has successfully contained the Israeli war against Palestinian militant group Hamas to Gaza and that there is not a wider conflict. But the sheer number of attacks on U.S. forces points to tensions spinning out of control. 

“It is already a larger conflict. It’s a question of degrees,” said Robert Murrett, a retired Navy vice admiral. But he said the fighting is “not out of control yet.” 

Advertisement

“Calling it a war is probably overstating things,” said Murrett, now a professor at Syracuse University. “But the tensions, the hostilities that exist between Iran and [the U.S.] are at the highest level they’ve been for some time.” 

The tit-for-tat battles reached a boiling point after a Sunday attack in Jordan, which the U.S. has said likely came from an Iranian-backed militia group in Iraq, Kata’ib Hezbollah. A suicide drone exploded in a housing unit at the Tower 22 base near Iraq and Syria, killing three Army soldiers. 

The U.S. also lost two sailors during a covert mission off the coast of Somalia to intercept Iranian missiles bound for the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen. While the mission was a success, two sailors died after falling into the rough waters. 

The deaths sparked mourning across the U.S. and calls for more action, particularly among Republicans, some who urged Biden to strike back inside Iran. 

Advertisement

Washington is already deploying significant resources to defend ships in the Red Sea from the Houthis and to carry out airstrikes in Yemen and Iraq, none of which have deterred the militia groups from stopping their attacks. 

The latest Houthi attack came Tuesday night, when a cruise missile launched from Yemen into the Red Sea came within a mile of a U.S. destroyer before it was shot down — the closest such an attack has come to an American vessel, CNN reported. 

And U.S. forces on Wednesday morning destroyed a Houthi surface-to-air missile that the group was preparing to launch into the waterway, U.S. Central Command said in a statement. 

Even the Biden administration admits the situation is veering dangerously close to a powder keg moment. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday warned that the “incredibly volatile” environment in the Middle East is as dangerous as it’s been in the region “since at least 1973, and arguably even before that.” 

Advertisement

President Biden has vowed to respond to the Jordan attacks, but the commander-in-chief also stressed he was trying to prevent the conflict from escalating. 

“I don’t think we need a wider war in the Middle East,” Biden told reporters Tuesday. “That’s not what I’m looking for.” 

When asked if the wider war was already here, Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh said she was “not discounting that tensions are high in the region by any means.” 

“These Iranian backed groups are targeting our military members with the intention of trying to kill them,” she said at a Monday briefing. “But we don’t seek a war.” 

Advertisement

Iran also appears to be trying to pull away from a growing conflict. Iranian officials quickly denied any responsibility for the Jordan attack, claiming that Tehran does not give direct orders to the militia groups it backs. 

Dangerous direction 

Besides the Jordan attack, the fighting has largely been limited to proportional responses and tit-for-tat attacks, analysts say — but they also fear the conflict will soon reach a tipping point. 

Sina Azodi, a professional lecturer of international affairs at George Washington University, compared it to World War I, when European countries did not seek a major war but the events spun out of control. 

“Space for diplomatic maneuvering is shrinking and Iran and the U.S. are dangerously on a pathway to a conflict,” he said. “Neither Iranians nor the Americans are interested in having a direct conflict. It is an existential threat for Iran to fight the U.S. It’s also quite costly for the United States to fight Iran directly.” 

Advertisement

“Neither side is interested, but my concern is they’re being pushed into that direction without actually wanting a conflict,” Azodi added. 

While there is no direct fighting between American troops and Iranian fighters, the U.S. says Iran is broadly complicit for supporting its proxies. And Iran is being pulled into the conflict more directly as well. 

Israel assassinated a high-ranking Iranian official in December in Syria. And an Israeli strike in January killed five Iranian officers, also in Syria. 

Iran has not sat idly by during the fighting. Tehran in early January carried out direct strikes on what it said was an Israeli spy base in Iraq. 

Advertisement

The Iranian-backed groups have tied their mission against U.S. forces to America’s support for Israel in its devastating war on Hamas. The death toll in Gaza has now topped 26,000 Palestinians, including what Israel says is thousands of Hamas fighters. 

Many experts believe a ceasefire is the only way to stop the Middle East fighting for good, but ongoing diplomatic negotiations appear to be at an impasse. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week he will not allow for a permanent ceasefire in the war to annihilate Hamas. And Hamas officials issued statements saying they will only return the roughly 130 hostages in Gaza for a lasting ceasefire. 

Others aren’t convinced a ceasefire would quell Houthi attacks.

Advertisement

“Based on my analysis and that of my team . . . even if the Israel-Gaza situation ended today with a complete resolution that was mutually agreeable to all parties involved, the Houthis will continue to attack shipping,” said Ian Ralby, CEO of I.R. Consilium, a company that specializes in maritime law and security and strategy. 

Speaking before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Tuesday, Ralby said 100 percent of the Houthis’ ballistic missile capabilities could be taken out and the group would still attack shipping lanes.  

The pending U.S. attack in retaliation for the deaths in Jordan will likely lead to another round of hostilities. Iran has vowed to respond decisively to any U.S. actions. 

But Iran’s response will largely depend on how Biden responds. Paul Eaton, a retired U.S. major general, said Biden could effectively halt most of the fighting with a forceful hit outside of Iran, pointing to the 2020 American strike against Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, which he said sent a “big message.” 

Advertisement

“We can make it clear to the Iranians that there’s no future in persisting and that we’re not leaving,” he said. “And we can turn that region into a very lonely place for Iran and their proxies.” 

Authorization fight

At some point, Biden will have to go to Congress to seek authorization to continue the fighting against the militia groups. 

The president has constitutional authority to carry out strikes and take military action in self-defense from attacks on American troops and assets.  

The 1973 War Powers Act puts restraints on that authority, requiring the president to seek approval from Congress, which alone has the power to declare war, within 60 days of military action beginning. 

Advertisement

The Iranian-backed groups first launched their attacks in late October, but more decisive U.S. retaliatory action started only in the past two months.  

Still, the 60-day limit is more of a loose rule than a fixed one, meaning lawmakers may not press Biden unless the conflict drags on for several more months or longer, said Frank Galgano, a retired U.S. Army soldier and Villanova University professor. 

“At some point, theoretically, national command authority exceeds its authority to basically run an undeclared war against the Houthis,” he said. “If this keeps going on for six months or a year [Biden] is going to have to explain to somebody what he’s doing.” 

On Capitol Hill, the strikes on the Houthis in Yemen are already spurring concerns among lawmakers, some of whom have asked the White House to clarify the justification to hit the rebel group.  

Advertisement

In the House, 27 lawmakers — on the far left and far right of the political spectrum — joined forces to question the Biden administration’s targeting of the Houthis and accuse him of violating the power of Congress to declare war. 

“We urge your administration to seek authorization from Congress before involving the U.S. in another conflict in the Middle East,” the lawmakers wrote last week

A bipartisan group of senators argued in a letter to Biden that any claim of self-defense was a stretch, as Houthis are mainly targeting foreign ships and commercial shipping, and the U.S. has repeatedly called it an international problem.

The Pentagon said it is working off a United Nations charter article that gives an “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations” for nations, at least until the Security Council takes action. 

Advertisement

Galgano said anti-piracy laws at the U.N. and in other maritime organizations may be able to justify action against the rebel group, even on land-based targets. 

“This represents a form of piracy,” he said. “The Houthis are not interested in robbing ships, unlike the Somali pirates or somebody else. But the idea is to create pressure and economic pain on the West, which is what [the Houthis are] doing at the behest of the Iranians.” 

Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) when asked if the White needs to come to Congress for authorization before responding to attack, said “ it’s all circumstantial, like it depends on the nature and the timing of the response.”

“The president has an Article 2 authority to defend U.S. forces. He then has a war powers obligation to notify Congress,” he said. 

Advertisement

“I think I’m waiting for the response from the administration.”

​ More than 160 attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, 37 clashes in the Red Sea with the Houthis — and now five dead U.S. service members. America’s mounting proxy battle with Iran over the past three months is spurring questions about whether the countries are at war. It’s also raising questions about… 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Will Kim Ju Ae Become North Korea’s First Female Leader?

Published

on

A New Face of Power in Pyongyang

In a country defined by secrecy and dynastic rule, the recent emergence of Kim Ju Ae—the daughter of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un—on the national and international stage has sparked intense speculation about the future of the world’s most isolated regime. For the first time since North Korea’s founding in 1948, the possibility of a female leader is being openly discussed, as state media and public ceremonies increasingly feature the teenage girl at her father’s side.

Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

Kim Ju Ae’s Rise to Prominence

Kim Ju Ae, believed to be around 12 or 13 years old, first came to the world’s attention in 2013 when former NBA star Dennis Rodman revealed he had held Kim Jong Un’s daughter during a visit to Pyongyang. However, she remained out of the public eye until November 2022, when she appeared beside her father at the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile—a powerful symbol in North Korean propaganda.

Since then, Ju Ae has become a regular fixture at high-profile events, from military parades and weapons launches to the grand opening of a water park and the unveiling of new naval ships. Her repeated appearances are unprecedented for a member of the Kim family so young, especially a girl, and have led South Korean intelligence officials to suggest she is being groomed as her father’s successor.

The Power of Propaganda

North Korea’s state media has shifted its language regarding Ju Ae, referring to her as “beloved” and, more recently, “respected”—a term previously reserved for the nation’s highest dignitaries. Analysts believe this is part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to build her public profile and legitimize her as a future leader, signaling continuity and stability for the regime.

Presenting Ju Ae as the face of the next generation serves several purposes:

  • Demonstrating dynastic continuity: By showcasing his daughter, Kim Jong Un assures elites and the public that the Kim family’s grip on power will persist.
  • Minimizing internal threats: A young female successor is less likely to attract rival factions or pose an immediate threat to the current leadership.
  • Projecting a modern image: Her presence at both military and civilian events signals adaptability and a potential shift in North Korea’s traditionally patriarchal leadership structure.

Breaking with Tradition?

If Ju Ae is indeed being positioned as the next leader, it would mark a historic break from North Korea’s deeply patriarchal system. The country has never had a female ruler, and its military and political elite remain overwhelmingly male. However, her growing public profile and the respect shown to her by senior officials suggest that the regime is preparing the nation for the possibility of her ascension.

The only other woman with significant visibility and influence in the regime is Kim Yo Jong, Kim Jong Un’s younger sister, who has become a powerful figure in her own right, especially in matters of propaganda and foreign policy.

A Nation Divided, a Dynasty Endures

While the Kim family’s hold on North Korea appears unshakable, the country remains divided from South Korea by a heavily militarized border. Many families have been separated for generations, with little hope for reunification in the near future. As the Kim dynasty prepares its next generation for leadership, the longing for family reunions and peace persists on both sides of the border.

The Road Ahead

Kim Ju Ae’s future remains shrouded in mystery, much like the country she may one day lead. Her carefully managed public appearances, the reverence shown by state media, and her father’s apparent efforts to secure her place in the succession line all point to a regime intent on preserving its legacy while adapting to new realities. Whether North Korea is truly ready for its first female leader is uncertain, but the groundwork is clearly being laid for a new chapter in the Kim dynasty.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill

Published

on

The “Big Beautiful Bill” (officially the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) is a sweeping tax and spending package passed in July 2025. It makes permanent many Trump-era tax cuts, introduces new tax breaks for working Americans, and enacts deep cuts to federal safety-net programs. The bill also increases spending on border security and defense, while rolling back clean energy incentives and tightening requirements for social programs.

Pros

1. Tax Relief for Middle and Working-Class Families

2. Support for Small Businesses and Economic Growth

  • Makes the small business deduction permanent, supporting Main Street businesses.
  • Expands expensing for investment in short-lived assets and domestic R&D, which is considered pro-growth.

3. Increased Spending on Security and Infrastructure

4. Simplification and Fairness in the Tax Code

  • Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and raises marginal rates on individuals earning over $400,000.
  • Closes various deductions and loopholes, especially those benefiting private equity and multinational corporations.

Cons

1. Deep Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs

  • Cuts Medicaid by approximately $930 billion and imposes new work requirements, which could leave millions without health insurance.
  • Tightens eligibility and work requirements for SNAP (food assistance), potentially removing benefits from many low-income families.
  • Rolls back student loan forgiveness and repeals Biden-era subsidies.

2. Increases the Federal Deficit

  • The bill is projected to add $3.3–4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
  • Critics argue that the combination of tax cuts and increased spending is fiscally irresponsible.

3. Benefits Skewed Toward the Wealthy

  • The largest income gains go to affluent Americans, with top earners seeing significant after-tax increases.
  • Critics describe the bill as the largest upward transfer of wealth in recent U.S. history.

4. Rollback of Clean Energy and Climate Incentives

5. Potential Harm to Healthcare and Rural Hospitals

6. Public and Political Backlash

  • The bill is unpopular in public polls and is seen as a political risk for its supporters.
  • Critics warn it will widen the gap between rich and poor and reverse progress on alternative energy and healthcare.

Summary Table

ProsCons
Permanent middle-class tax cutsDeep Medicaid and SNAP cuts
No tax on tips/overtime for most workersMillions may lose health insurance
Doubled Child Tax CreditAdds $3.3–4T to deficit
Small business supportBenefits skewed to wealthy
Increased border/defense spendingClean energy incentives eliminated
Simplifies some tax provisionsThreatens rural hospitals
Public backlash, political risk

In summary:
The Big Beautiful Bill delivers significant tax relief and new benefits for many working and middle-class Americans, but it does so at the cost of deep cuts to social programs, a higher federal deficit, and reduced support for clean energy and healthcare. The bill is highly polarizing, with supporters touting its pro-growth and pro-family provisions, while critics warn of increased inequality and harm to vulnerable populations.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump Threatens to ‘Take a Look’ at Deporting Elon Musk Amid Explosive Feud

Published

on

The escalating conflict between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk reached a new peak this week, as Trump publicly suggested he would consider deporting the billionaire entrepreneur in response to Musk’s fierce criticism of the president’s signature tax and spending bill.

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk arrives on the red carpet for the automobile awards “Das Goldene Lenkrad” (The golden steering wheel) given by a German newspaper in Berlin, Germany, November 12, 2019. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke/File Photo

“I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday when asked directly if he would deport Musk, who was born in South Africa but has been a U.S. citizen since 2002.

This threat followed a late-night post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he accused Musk of being the largest recipient of government subsidies in U.S. history. Trump claimed that without these supports, Musk “would likely have to shut down operations and return to South Africa,” and that ending such subsidies would mean “no more rocket launches, satellites, or electric vehicle production, and our nation would save a FORTUNE”.

Trump also invoked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a federal agency Musk previously led—as a potential tool to scrutinize Musk’s companies. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump remarked, further intensifying the feud.

Background to the Feud

The rupture comes after Musk’s repeated attacks on Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a comprehensive spending and tax reform proposal that Musk has labeled a “disgusting abomination” and a threat to the nation’s fiscal health. Musk, once a Trump ally who contributed heavily to his election campaign and served as a government advisor, has called for the formation of a new political party, claiming the bill exposes the need for an alternative to the current two-party system.

Advertisement

In response, Trump’s allies have amplified questions about Musk’s citizenship and immigration history, with some suggesting an investigation into his naturalization process. However, legal experts note that deporting a naturalized U.S. citizen like Musk would be extremely difficult. The only path would involve denaturalization—a rare and complex legal process requiring proof of intentional fraud during the citizenship application, a standard typically reserved for the most egregious cases.

Political Fallout

Musk’s criticism has rattled some Republican lawmakers, who fear the feud could undermine their party’s unity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Meanwhile, Musk has doubled down on his opposition, warning he will support primary challengers against Republicans who back Trump’s bill.

Key Points:

As the dispute continues, it has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over government spending, corporate subsidies, and political loyalty at the highest levels of American power.

Continue Reading

Trending