US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares81 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge orders release of Kilmar Ábrego García as he awaits federal trial

      by

      A Tennessee judge on Sunday ordered the release of Kilmar Ábrego García, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, while he awaits a federal trial on human smuggling charges. But he is not expected to be allowed to go free.At his 13 June detention hearing, prosecutors said US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) would take Ábrego García into custody if he were released on the criminal charges, and he could be deported before he has a chance to stand trial.US magistrate judge Barbara Holmes has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the conditions of Ábrego García’s release. The US government has already filed a motion to appeal the judge’s release order.Holmes acknowledged in her ruling on Sunday that determining whether Ábrego García should be released is “little more than an academic exercise” because Ice will probably detain him. But the judge wrote that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and “a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial”.Holmes wrote that the government failed to prove that Ábrego García was a flight risk, that he posed a danger to the community or that he would interfere with proceedings if released.“Overall, the Court cannot find from the evidence presented that Ábrego’s release clearly and convincingly poses an irremediable danger to other persons or to the community,” the judge wrote.Ábrego García has pleaded not guilty to the smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify the deportation mistake after the fact.The acting US attorney for the middle district of Tennessee, Rob McGuire, argued on 13 June that the likely attempt by Ice to try to deport him was one reason to keep him in jail.But Holmes said then that she had no intention of “getting in the middle of any Ice hold”.“If I elect to release Mr Ábrego, I will impose conditions of release, and the US Marshal will release him.” If he is released into Ice custody, that is “above my pay grade”, she said.The judge suggested that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security could work out between themselves whether the government’s priority is to try him on the criminal charges or deport him. No date has been set for the trial.Will Allensworth, an assistant federal public defender representing Ábrego García at the detention hearing, told Holmes that “it’s not necessarily accurate that he would be immediately deported.”A 2019 immigration judge’s order prevents Ábrego García, who had been living in Maryland, from being deported to his home country of El Salvador, Allensworth said in court. That’s because he faces a credible threat from gangs there, according to court papers.The government could deport him to a third country, but immigration officials would first be required to show that third country was willing to keep him and not simply deport him back to El Salvador, Allensworth said.The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Ábrego García was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Although officers suspected possible smuggling, he was allowed to go on his way with only a warning. He has pleaded not guilty.At the detention hearing, McGuire said cooperating witnesses have accused Ábrego García of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims. Although he is not charged with such crimes, McGuire said they showed Ábrego García to be a dangerous person who should remain in jail pretrial.Ábrego García’s attorneys have characterized the smuggling case as a desperate attempt to justify the mistaken deportation. The investigation was launched weeks after the US government deported Ábrego García and the supreme court ordered the administration to facilitate his return amid mounting public pressure.The US is now expected to try to deport him again with much of the world watching and the outcome hard to predict.Most people in Ice custody who are facing criminal charges are not kept in the US for trial but deported, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, an Ohio State University law professor, said.The US will probably try to deport Ábrego García quickly without going before an immigration judge, the professor said. The government would not need a conviction to deport him because Ábrego García came to the US illegally.“The legal standard is laxer,” García Hernández said. “The government’s argument is on stronger legal footing.”However an immigration judge rules, the decision can be appealed to the board of immigration appeals, García Hernández said. And the board’s ruling can then be contested in a federal appeals court. More

    • 163 Shares132 Views

      in US Politics

      JD Vance claims US is at war with Iran’s nuclear program, not Iran

      by

      JD Vance has said the US is “not at war” with Iran – but is with its nuclear weapons program, holding out a position that the White House hopes to maintain over the coming days as the Iranian regime considers a retributive response to Saturday’s US strike on three of its nuclear installations.In an interview Sunday with NBC News’ Meet the Press, the US vice-president was asked if the US was now at war with Iran.“We’re not at war with Iran,” Vance replied. “We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.”But Vance declined to confirm with absolute certainty that Iran’s nuclear sites were completely destroyed, a position that Donald Trump set out in a Saturday night address when the president stated that the targeted Iranian facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated” in the US strikes.Vance instead said that he believes the US has “substantially delayed” Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon.“I’m not going to get into sensitive intelligence about what we’ve seen on the ground there in Iran, but we’ve seen a lot, and I feel very confident that we’ve substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon, and that was the goal of this attack,” Vance said.He continued: “Severely damaged versus obliterated – I’m not exactly sure what the difference is.“What we know is we set their nuclear program back substantially.”An Iranian member of parliament claimed on Sunday that the Fordo enrichment plant, the focus of seven B-2 bombers armed with 14 premier bunker-busters from the US arsenal, was not seriously damaged.Those bombers returned to Missouri on Sunday.Separately, Bloomberg News said satellite images of the site undermined the Trump administration’s claims that Iran’s underground nuclear sites at Fordo and Natanz had been destroyed.Satellite images distributed by Maxar Technologies showed new craters, possible collapsed tunnel entrances and holes on top of a mountain ridge. But the main support building at the facility remained undamaged, the report said.Maxar said in a statement that images of Natanz showed a new crater about 5.5 meters (18ft) in diameter over the underground facility – but they did not offer conclusive evidence that the 40-meter-deep nuclear engineering site had been breached.The chair of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Dan Caine, said at a Pentagon briefing on Sunday: “Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.”Nuclear non-proliferation analysts are conflicted on whether the strikes will be effective in bringing Iran to the negotiating table or convince them to move more decisively toward enriching uranium stockpiles to weapons-grade, assembling a bomb, and manufacturing a delivery system.In a statement to Bloomberg, Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said there were slim prospects that the US entering the war would convince Iran to increase International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cooperation. The nuclear watchdog has said it is not sure where Iran’s 400lb stockpile of 60% uranium is.“The more likely scenario is that they convince Iran that cooperation and transparency don’t work and that building deeper facilities and ones not declared openly is more sensible to avoid similar targeting in future,” Dolzikova said.Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said he planned to fly to Moscow to meet with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, on Monday morning for consultations. Separately, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said his forces were progressing toward its goal of destroying Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threats.“We are moving step after step to achieve these goals. We are very, very close to completing them,” he said. More

    • 125 Shares79 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s military attack on Iran reveals split among Maga diehards

      by

      Saturday’s US strikes on Iran provoked conflicting reactions from isolationist Republicans who support Donald Trump’s Make America great again (Maga) movement, catching them – like many Democrats – between supporting efforts against nuclear proliferation and opposing American intervention in foreign conflicts.The far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – a loyalist to the president – reacted to the strikes by urging those in the US to pray that terrorists do not attack “our homeland” in retaliation.“Let us join together and pray for the safety of our US troops and Americans in the Middle East,” Greene wrote on X.But Greene had not been so supportive in a message posted 30 minutes before Trump announced news of the surprise strikes on Saturday evening.In that message, Greene wrote: “Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war. There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if [its prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.”The former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, who has been an opponent of US military intervention in Iran, hit out at the president for thanking Netanyahu in a national address shortly after the strikes.Speaking on his War Room web show, Bannon said, “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.”That came amid ongoing speculation that Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear sites on Saturday stemmed from information that Iran was close to developing a weapon – as supplied by Israeli, and not US, intelligence sources. The issue created an apparent split between Trump and the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.The president recently criticized Gabbard and the US intelligence community, saying they were “wrong” in assessing that Iran had not taken the political step of ordering a bomb. Gabbard has denied that she and Trump were not on the same page.Nonetheless, Bannon continued his criticism of the strikes, saying: “I don’t think we’ve been dealing from the top of the deck.”The former White House adviser also criticized Trump for leaving open the possibility of further US strikes if Iran fails to capitulate to US demands. “I’m not quite sure [it was] the talk that a lot of Maga wanted to hear,” he said. “It sounded … very open-ended.”Days earlier, amid signs of a Maga rebellion against the administration’s increasingly hawkish stance on Iran, Bannon told an audience in Washington that bitterness over the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a driving force for Trump’s first presidential victory. “One of the core tenets is no forever wars,” Bannon said.Bannon, though, said “the Maga movement will back Trump” despite its opposition to military interventions.But there are now signs that the Maga “America first” isolationist position may be more amenable to limited airstrikes. The administration has stressed that Saturday’s raids only targeted Iran’s nuclear enrichment and not manufacturing locations, population centers or economic assets, including the oil terminal at Karg island.The far-right influencer Charlie Kirk had warned of a Maga divide over Iran, saying “Trump voters, especially young people, supported [him] because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.”Yet on Sunday, Kirk reposted a clip of an interview with JD Vance on Meet the Press in which the vice-president praised the B-2 pilots from Missouri who carried out the previous day’s bombing.“They dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine, and then got back home safely without ever landing in the Middle East,” Vance said in the clip. “Whatever our politics, we should be proud of what these guys accomplished.”In that interview, Vance suggested Trump had “probably” decided by mid-May that the diplomatic process with Iran was “not going anywhere”. But Vance refused to be drawn on when precisely Trump approved the strike, saying it probably came “over time”. More

    • 175 Shares112 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats say they were left in dark about plans for US strikes on Iran

      by

      Senior Democrats have claimed they were left in the dark about operation Midnight Hammer, the US’s highly coordinated strike on Saturday on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.Neither Mark Warner, a US senator of Virginia, nor Jim Himes, a representative of Connecticut, both top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence panels, were briefed before the attack, according to reports.But that came amid claims that Republican counterparts were given advance notice of the operation, which involved 125 aircraft – including seven B-2 bombers carrying 14 bunker busters weighing three tons – and 75 Tomahawk missiles launched from US submarines. Axios reported that the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, had been informed shortly before the attacks began at 6.40pm eastern time.Himes’s committee staff received notification about the strike from the Pentagon only after Donald Trump made the announcement on social media soon before 8pm, according to the outlet.The president’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, told a press conference early on Sunday that the strikes “took months and weeks of positioning and preparation so that we could be ready when the president called”.“It took misdirection and the highest of operational security,” Hegseth said, in part alluding to the US’s deployment of B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam earlier on Saturday.The US attack of Iran came as most Democrats had left Washington for the Juneteenth holiday – but the apparent lack of forewarning to lawmakers on intelligence committees is striking. Top lawmakers are typically informed of military operations in advance.“Cost, duration, risk to our troops, strategy – the basics before we make a decision of this consequence,” said Chris Coons, a senior Democratic member of the Senate foreign relations committee, last week.Arizona senator Mark Kelly told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday that the White House should have been “right up front” in coming to Congress “and asking for authorization to do this”.“That’s the constitutional approach to this,” Kelly said. “He could have talked to us about what the goal is and what the plan is ahead of time.”Tim Kaine, a Virginia senator who sits on the armed services as well as the foreign relations committees, said Congress needed to be informed ahead of time.“Congress needs to authorize a war against Iran,” he said. “This Trump war against Iran – we have not.” Senators are expected to receive a briefing on the strikes next week. But the signs that an attack was imminent were there to see: additional US military assets had been moved into the region, and the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had postponed a briefing with the Senate intelligence committee last week.Moderate and progressive Democrats have been in conflict over the engagement of US forces in support of Israel. Trump’s use of force could now deepen the ideological schism.Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, told CNN on Sunday that “the destruction of these facilities is a positive in the sense that it will set back Iran’s program”. But he warned that Iran could now “sprint for a bomb”.He added that the strikes were “not constitutional” and Congress should be brought in “on an action this substantial that could lead to a major outbreak of war”. But Schiff refused to be drawn in on whether the world was safer following the strike. “We simply don’t know,” he said.Schiff maintained that in absence of a briefing “this is an order that should not have been given”.Prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations have been notably silent on the 10-day war between Israel and Iran. “They are sort of hedging their bets,” said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state during the Obama administration.“The beasts of the Democratic party’s constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel’s war in Gaza that it’s really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.”But some had spoken out. Ro Khanna, a California congressman, called the White House threats of an attack on Iran “a defining moment for our party”. That came as progressive and isolationist lawmakers on the right found themselves uncomfortably aligned.Khanna had introduced legislation with the Kentucky Republican US House member Thomas Massie that called on Trump to “terminate” the use of US armed forces against Iran unless “explicitly authorized” by a declaration of war from Congress.Following the strike, Khanna posted on X: “Trump struck Iran without any authorization of Congress.”Khanna said Congress needed to “immediately return” to Washington to vote on the measure he and Massie co-authored. Kaine said he would bring a similar resolution to the Senate in the coming days.Massie said in response to the strikes: “This is not Constitutional.”The independent US senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, said supporting the Israeli prime minister Benjamin “Netanyahu’s war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake”. He introduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran.The New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on X that the decision to attack Iran’s nuclear sites was “disastrous”.“The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.Halie Soifer, the chief executive officer of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said in a statement: “This is an incredibly difficult moment for the vast majority of American Jews, who are supportive of Israel, concerned about the security and safety of the Israeli people and Jews in the United States and around the world, and fearful that president Trump lacks a clear strategy about what happens next with Iran.”On NBC’s Meet the Press JD Vance, the US vice-president, maintained that it was untrue to say that Saturday’s strikes in Iran exceeded Trump’s presidential authority.Schiff, meanwhile, declined to support calls for impeachment proceedings against Trump, saying the failure to brief Democrats ahead of the strike was “another partisan exercise”. More

    • 188 Shares132 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Our era of violent populism’: the US has entered a new phase of political violence

      by

      It has been a grim couple of weeks in the US, as multiple acts of politically motivated violence have dominated headlines and sparked fears that a worrying new normal has taken hold in America.Last Saturday, a man disguised as a police officer attacked two Democratic legislators at their homes in Minnesota, killing a state representative and her husband, and wounding another lawmaker and his wife. The alleged murderer was planning further attacks, police said, on local politicians and abortion rights advocates.The same day, during national “No Kings” demonstrations against the Trump administration, there was a spate of other violence or near-violence across the US. After a man with a rifle allegedly charged at protesters in Utah, an armed “safety volunteer” associated with the protest fired at the man, wounding him and killing a bystander. When protesters in California surrounded a car, the driver sped over a protester’s leg. And a man was arrested in Arizona after brandishing a handgun at protesters.Later in the week, a Jewish lawmaker in Ohio reported that he was “run off the road” by a man who waved a Palestinian flag at him. Police in New York also said they were investigating anti-Muslim threats to the mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.The political temperature is dangerously high – and shows few signs of cooling.View image in fullscreen“We are in a historically high period of American political violence,” Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, told the Guardian. “I call it our ‘era of violent populism’. It’s been about 50 years since we’ve seen something like this. And the situation is getting worse.”He said the US is in a years-long stretch of political violence that started around the time of Donald Trump’s first election, with perpetrators coming from both the right and the left.In 2017, the first year of Trump’s first presidency, a leftwing activist opened fire on a group of Republican politicians and lobbyists playing baseball, wounding four people. In 2021, pro-Trump rioters attacked the US Capitol. In 2022, a conspiracy theorist attacked then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer, and a man angry about the US supreme court’s rightward drift tried to assassinate justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump survived two assassination attempts in 2024; the Pennsylvania gunman’s bullet missed Trump’s face by a few centimeters.The Israel-Gaza war has contributed to the tension. Last month a gunman murdered two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington DC; the alleged perpetrator, an American-born leftwing radical, described the killings as an act of solidarity with Palestinians. A couple weeks later a man in Colorado attacked a group of pro-Israel demonstrators with molotov cocktails.Pape directs the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, which studies terrorism and conflict. He noted in a recent piece in the New York Times that his research has found rising support among both left- and right-leaning Americans for the “use of force” to achieve political means.The May survey was “the most worrisome yet”, he wrote. “About 40 percent of Democrats supported the use of force to remove Mr. Trump from the presidency, and about 25 percent of Republicans supported the use of the military to stop protests against Mr. Trump’s agenda. These numbers more than doubled since last fall, when we asked similar questions.”Americans are not only polarized, but forming into distinct and visible “mobilized blocs”, Pape says. He also notes that acts of political violence seem to be becoming “increasingly premeditated”.Quantifying political violence or “domestic terrorism” can be difficult, Pape said, because the FBI does not track it in a consistent manner. The best proxy, he said, is often prosecuted threats against members of Congress. Those “have gone up dramatically, especially since the first year of Trump’s first term”, he said, adding that the threats have been “essentially 50-50” against Democratic and Republican lawmakers.View image in fullscreenThe US Capitol police, which protects Congress, reported in April that the number of threat assessment cases it has investigated “has climbed for the second year in a row”.While both sides have committed violence, Jon Lewis, a research fellow at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, thinks that Republican political leaders carry more culpability for the violent climate. “We haven’t seen the mainstream political left embrace political violence in the same way,” he said.He noted that while Luigi Mangione, the man who allegedly murdered a healthcare insurance executive last year, could be considered leftwing, he was “more of an anti-system extremist” who also hated the Democratic party. In contrast, “when you look at the rhetoric and language being used in neo-Nazi mass shooter manifestos, it’s almost identical to Stephen Miller posts”, he added, referring to the White House aide.Quantifying violence is also tricky because it can be difficult to determine ideological motives or causal relations. People died during the 2020 George Floyd protests and riots, but it is not clear to what extent all of the deaths were directly related to the unrest. In 2023, a transgender shooter attacked a Christian private school in Tennessee, killing three children and three adults; while the attacker had railed against “little crackers” with “white privileges”, investigators concluded that the attack was most motivated by a desire for notoriety.This April, someone set the Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro’s mansion on fire while he and his family, who were unharmed, slept inside. Although Shapiro is Jewish and the alleged perpetrator made remarks condemning Israel, the suspect’s family members have said that he has a long history of mental health problems.In other cases, acts of violence are ideological but don’t fall on to conventional political lines. Earlier this year, a man bombed a fertility clinic in California; the suspect was an anti-natalist – or self-described “pro-mortalist” – who was philosophically opposed to human reproduction.Pape believes that the current wave of violence and tumult is only partly a reaction to Trump’s polarizing politics.“He’s as much a symptom as a cause,” he said. The more important factor is “a period of high social change … as the US moves from a white-majority country to a white-minority country. And that’s been going drip, drip, drip since the early 1970s, but around 10 years ago we started to go through the transition generation”, Pape said.The closest analogue is probably the US in the 1960s and 1970s, when the civil rights movement, the hippy counterculture, the Vietnam war, and Black and Latino nationalism were accompanied by a wave of political assassinations and other violence as white supremacist groups and others harassed and killed civil rights leaders.There was also a wave of leftwing violence. Domestic terror groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weather Underground attacked judges, police officers and government offices. In 1972, according to Bryan Burrough’s 2015 book Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence, there were over 1,900 domestic bombings in the US, though most were not fatal.Later, the 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of the anti-government militia movement, which culminated in Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma federal building. That bombing killed 168 people, and is the most deadly domestic terror attack in US history.View image in fullscreenLewis thinks that violent rhetoric is now even more normalized – that there is increasing tolerance of the idea that “political violence, targeted hate, harassment, is OK if it’s your in-group … against the ‘other side’”.American political leaders need to condemn political violence, Pape said, ideally in a bipartisan way and in forms that show prominent Democratic and Republican figures physically side-by-side: “The absolute number one thing that should happen … is that president Trump and governor Newsom do a joint video condemning political violence.”After Melissa Hortman, the Democratic state legislator in Minnesota, was killed last weekend, Mike Lee, a Utah senator, published social media posts making light of her death and insinuating it was the fault of the state’s Democratic governor, Tim Walz. Lee later deleted the posts, but has not apologized.Walter Hudson, a Republican state representative in Minnesota who was acquainted with Hortman, said he has been thinking about the relationship between political rhetoric and violence since Hortman’s death.“I think it’s fair to say that nobody on either side of the aisle, no matter the language they’ve used, would have ever intended or imagined that something they said was going to prompt somebody to go and commit a vicious and heartless act like the one we saw over the weekend,” he said. He acknowledged that rhetoric can be a factor in violence, however.“I don’t know how we unwind this,” he said. “The optimistic side of me hopes that it’s going to translate into a different approach.” More

    • 225 Shares112 Views

      in US Politics

      Los Angeles is not a hellscape – no matter how much Trump wishes for it | Dave Schilling

      by

      The Los Angeles Dodgers lost on Thursday, 5-3, to the San Diego Padres. A mostly unremarkable game livened up by a hit batsman that led to a near-brawl between the two teams. But the real action took place well before the first pitch. Federal agents were seen attempting to enter Dodger Stadium’s parking lot earlier in the day, according to several reports. When asked, the agents declared they were with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). After the Dodgers said they had turned Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents away, Ice denied being at the stadium at all, while DHS said Customs and Border Protection vehicles “were in the stadium parking lot very briefly, unrelated to any operation or enforcement”. Yes, but what about, you know, the videos? The eyewitness accounts? All that evidence? Never mind that, I suppose.We’ve become quite immune to the confused realities of this administration. They could say the sky is purple, horses can carry on cocktail party conversation à la Mr Ed, and Justin Bieber is a recent Nobel laureate in physics and we’d respond: “Well, of course, carry on. Congrats to Justin, I suppose.” They’ve been doing it since Donald Trump’s first term, but really ratcheted up the bullshit during the immigration protests in Los Angeles. The administration’s party line is that Los Angeles was tipping into full-on, RoboCop-style anarchy and the only solution to that problem was a deployment of the national guard and the marines, against the wishes of the Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass, and California’s governor, Gavin Newsom. This, despite the protests occurring within about 1 sq mile of a city that is, by my last count, absolutely enormous. Or, for those who don’t live here, 500 sq miles (1,300 sq km). To be exact.The protests have largely wrapped up, even as Ice has become more brazen in its activities – snatching people outside a Home Depot in Hollywood and dropping by our baseball stadium for unknown reasons. Despite the lack of conflagration, a federal appeals court recently affirmed Trump’s right to deploy the guard for this particular purpose, though going to the trouble of reminding the administration that such actions are not above judicial review. Of course, for the immigrant denizens of LA, this city does feel like a war zone, with the constant fear, anxiety and stress that comes with all of that. Public transit ridership is down significantly, businesses have to close to prevent their employees from being captured and stories of Ice raids trickle through communities like drips of poison. That’s our shared reality, but it’s not the one outsiders seem to care about. They’re more interested in the Waymos, I suppose.Despite the ongoing mischaracterization of the situation on the ground, Trump seems unable to manage to get the widespread clashes and chaos he so clearly desires. The military deployment in LA wasn’t much more remarkable than his birthday-party-cum-bring-your-army-to-work-day that nearly put Marco Rubio to sleep. Trump might have been asleep too, but his eyes have narrowed into such baggy slits that one can no longer make an accurate judgment. His eyelids now resemble two fluffy hamburger buns, with nothing but a layer of mayonnaise in between.Perhaps the president’s burger eyes are partially to blame for his lack of awareness of what is actually happening in Los Angeles. Our schools are in summer break, leaving the roads slightly less congested. A recent heatwave has me canoodling with my air conditioner, like two drunk celebrities in the back of the Met Gala dining room. Juneteenth celebrations in my area carried on as usual. Downtown, the site of the protest actions, is back to being a great place to urinate in an alley without being pelted by rubber bullets. I still can’t get my agent to call me back about that script. All is well here. And yet, the pretense of simmering violence is continuing to be used to justify a wholly unnecessary deployment of the armed forces.Speaking of armed forces, the Los Angeles police department totals nearly 9,000 officers, with tanks, riot gear and heavy weaponry. The LAPD is, in many ways, a little mini-army to patrol those aforementioned 500 sq miles of enormousness. When Bass said the LAPD could handle it, she meant it. This is another way in which perception taints the reality on the ground. LA has taken the place of countless other conservative boogeymen – San Francisco, Portland, New York City – as the pre-eminent scourge of so-called liberal lawlessness. Of course, LA, like those other cities, spends money on its police force like I do on The RealReal after one too many martinis. The most recent LAPD budget topped $2bn, which, while less than the purchase price of the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team, is still quite a lot. It’s a billion dollars more than is spent on homelessness programs by the entire state. A city politician can hardly get elected without at least some support from the police unions, like our new district attorney, Nathan Hochman, who trounced the incumbent by running on a law-and-order platform.But the American conservative media apparatus can and routinely does tell a different story of Los Angeles. That it’s a liberal hellscape where God has been given his two-weeks’ notice and everyone gives each other anal beads for Christmas. If only that were true. Maybe this would be a more exciting place to live. In reality, AKA that thing that happens when you go outside, this can be a terribly boring place to live, especially when your agent doesn’t call you back. To be honest, I quite like how boring it is. It’s a lot easier to complain about mundane things, like every good restaurant closing on Mondays. Can we spread that out? Maybe some of you close on Sundays, so I don’t have to subject myself to Sweetgreen when I’m too lazy to cook. Just try it out. I could complain about how the DMV kiosk that’s supposed to make it faster to renew your car registration is actually becoming just as long of a line as the normal window because the payment system is constantly going down. Or that the San Diego Padres are the dirtiest team in baseball and their entire franchise should be sold to the Saudi royal family for scrap and moved to Riyadh. You know, normal things to complain about. The only time it’s not boring to live in Los Angeles is when someone (you know who) decides to send the marines in to walk around in a circle for two months. If the federal government could promise to let Los Angeles be boring again, I’ll promise to stop handing out anal beads during the holidays. A deal’s a deal.

      Dave Schilling is a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist More

    • 288 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      No matter what Trump says, the US has gone to war – and there will be profound and lasting consequences | Simon Tisdall

      by

      Bombing will not make Iran go away. US bombs will not destroy the knowhow needed to build a nuclear weapon or the will do so, if that is what Tehran wants. The huge attack ordered by Donald Trump will not halt ongoing open warfare between Israel and Iran. It will not bring lasting peace to the Middle East, end the slaughter in Gaza, deliver justice to the Palestinians, or end more than half a century of bitter enmity between Tehran and Washington.More likely, Trump’s rash, reckless gamble will inflame and exacerbate all these problems. Depending on how Iran and its allies and supporters react, the region could plunge into an uncontrolled conflagration. US bases in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere in the region, home to about 40,000 American troops, must now be considered potential targets for retaliation – and possibly British and allied forces, too.Trump says he has not declared war on Iran. He claims the attack is not an opening salvo in a campaign aimed at triggering regime change in Tehran. But that’s not how Iran’s politicians and people will see it. Trump’s premature bragging about “spectacular” success, and threats of more and bigger bombs, sound like the words of a ruthless conqueror intent on total, crushing victory.Trump, the isolationist president who vowed to avoid foreign wars, has walked slap bang into a trap prepared by Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu – a trap his smarter predecessors avoided. Netanyahu has constantly exaggerated the immediacy of the Iranian nuclear threat. His alarmist speeches on this subject go back 30 years. Always, he claimed to know what UN nuclear inspectors, US and European intelligence agencies and even some of his own spy chiefs did not – namely, that Iran was on the verge of deploying a ready-to-use nuclear weapon aimed at Israel’s heart.This contention has never been proven. Iran has always denied seeking a nuclear bomb. Its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa banning any such programme. Netanyahu’s most recent claim that Iran was weaponising, made as he tried to justify last week’s unilateral, illegal Israeli attacks, was not supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or US intelligence experts. But weak-minded Trump chose to believe it. Reading from Netanyahu’s script, he said on Saturday night that eliminating this incontrovertible nuclear threat was vital – and the sole aim of the US air assault.So, once again, the US has gone to war in the Middle East on the back of a lie, on disputed, probably faulty intelligence purposefully distorted for political reasons. Once again, as in Iraq in 2003, the overall objectives of the war are unclear, uncertain and open to interpretation by friend and foe alike. Once again, there appears to be no “exit strategy”, no guardrails against escalation and no plan for what happens next. Demanding that Iran capitulate or face “national tragedy” is not a policy. It’s a deadly dead-end.Iran will not go away, whatever Trump and Netanyahu may imagine in their fevered dreams. It will remain a force in the region. It will remain a country to be reckoned with, a country of 90 million people, and one with powerful allies in China, Russia and the global south. It is already insisting it will continue with its civil nuclear programme.These events are a reminder of how profound is official US ignorance of Iran. Unlike the UK, Washington has had no diplomatic presence there since the revolution. It has had few direct political contacts, and its swingeing economic sanctions have created even greater distance, further diminishing mutual understanding. Trump’s decision to renege on the 2015 nuclear accord (negotiated by Barack Obama, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the EU) was a product of this ignorance. Ten years later, he is trying to do with bombs what was largely, peacefully achieved through diplomacy by his wiser, less impulsive, less easily led predecessors.View image in fullscreenPeace seems more elusive than ever – and Netanyahu is celebrating. The US cannot walk away now. It’s committed. And, as Netanyahu sees it, he and Israel cannot lose. Except, except … Iran cannot somehow be imagined away. It still has to be dealt with. And the reckoning that now looms, short- and long-term, may be more terrible than any of Netanyahu’s scare stories.Iran previously warned that if the US attacked, it would hit back at US bases. There are many to choose from, in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan and elsewhere. The Houthis in Yemen say they will resume attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. The strait of Hormuz, so important a transit point for global energy supplies, may be mined, as happened in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. The result could be a global oil shock and markets meltdown. And Iran is still reportedly firing missiles into Israel, despite claims in Jerusalem that most of its ballistic missiles bases have been destroyed.Reacting to Trump’s attack, Iranian officials say no options are off the table in terms of retaliation. And they say they will not negotiate under fire, despite a call to do so from the British prime minister, Keir Starmer. Rejecting Trump’s unverified claims about the total destruction of all nuclear facilities, they also insist Iran will reconstitute and continue its nuclear programme. The big question now is whether that programme really will be weaponised.Two radical longer-term consequences may flow from this watershed moment. One is that Khamenei’s unpopular regime, notorious for corruption, military incompetence and economic mismanagement, and deprived of support from Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza, may crack under the strain of this disaster. So far there has been little sign of an uprising or a change in government. That’s not surprising, given that Tehran and other cities are under bombardment. But regime collapse cannot be ruled out.The other is that, rather than surrender the cherished right to uranium enrichment and submit to the Trump-Netanyahu ultimatum, Iran’s rulers, whoever they are, will decide to follow North Korea and try to acquire a bomb as quickly as possible, to fend off future humiliations. That could entail withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and rejection of the UN inspections regime. After years of trying to play by western rules, Iran could really finally go rogue.The supposed need to acquire nukes for self-defence is a grim lesson other countries around the world may draw from these events. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is the biggest immediate danger to the future of the planet. What Trump just did in recklessly and violently trying to eliminate an unproven threat may ensure the proven danger of a nuclear-armed world grows ever-more real.

      Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator More

    • 188 Shares112 Views

      in US Politics

      Israel is playing an outsized role in New York City’s mayoral race. Will it matter?

      by

      Speaking from a Jerusalem bomb shelter last week as Iran and Israel exchanged fire, a New York state senator posted a video message to New York City voters: “There is a mayoral primary coming up this week where one of the candidates does not believe the Jewish state has a right to exist,” said Sam Sutton, the senator from Brooklyn. “We don’t want to be in a situation like this in America.”Sutton called on New Yorkers to elect a “great friend of the Jewish people”: Andrew Cuomo, New York’s former governor.The appeal was a stark illustration of the outsized role a foreign country and its conflicts have come to play in local elections. While Tuesday’s vote is just the primary, the winner of the Democratic contest historically has gone on to win the mayoral contest in November – though this year could be different.“This election has turned into a two-person contest between Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mandani, two candidates with very stark views on this matter,” said Jacob Kornbluh, a senior politics reporter with the Forward Jewish newspaper.With New York City’s nearly one million Jews making up the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, mayors of the past have always claimed support for the country with little pushback. But the war in Gaza has fundamentally changed the dynamic. Mamdani’s outspoken support for Palestinians might have previously tanked his candidacy, but his insurgent campaign has galvanised voters. Cuomo has responded by portraying Mamdani as “dangerous” and himself as uniquely positioned to fight antisemitism, a growing source of anxiety among Jewish voters.Cuomo’s campaign – flush with millions from pro-Israel billionaires like Bill Ackman – has ramped up attacks against Mamdani as he surged in the polls, including by distributing mailers condemned as racist. The former governor has stated unequivocally that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism”.It’s not just Cuomo appealing to the fears of Jewish voters. Eric Adams – the current mayor, who is running as an independent given his plummeting popularity – recently adopted a contentious definition of antisemitism and floated running on an “EndAntisemitism” party line.Mamdani grew emotional last week while discussing the personal toll of the attacks, including multiple death threats, and has invoked his experience as a Muslim New Yorker to say he understands the pain of the Jewish communities that he pledges to protect.“The attacks on Zohran are textbook post 9/11 Islamophobia,” said Sumaya Awad, a Palestinian New Yorker and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, one of the first groups to back his candidacy. She praised Mamdani for not “backing down”.Mamdani co-founded his college’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, and as a state assembly member, introduced legislation to stop the funding of illegal Israeli settlements. He has built an enthusiastic coalition of young, progressive, and unabashedly pro-Palestinain New Yorkers, as well as immigrants and many of the city’s roughly 800,000 Muslims.View image in fullscreenCity comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander, who is Jewish and has cross-endorsed Mamdani, has sought to find a middle ground and accused Cuomo and Adams of “using Jews as pawns”, he told the Guardian in an interview – “not with the intention of making Jews any safer, but with the intention of gaining political advantage for themselves”.“Thankfully it’s not the job of the mayor to find mutual recognition and peace and safety for Israelis and Palestinians,” he said. “It is incumbent on the next mayor, whatever their position is, to find ways to reach across the divide.”As some candidates stoke fears, anxiety around the election is palpable among many Jewish voters.Alex Kaufman, a leader of LGBTQ Zionists of NYC, which endorsed Cuomo, said he had always prioritized issues like housing affordability, sustainability, and racial inclusion. “But this year, my number one issue is antisemitism,” he said. “I’ve never felt this unsafe.”With election day around the corner, the race has turned into an Israel-Palestine proxy war of sorts, even as voters on both sides wish the focus remained on local issues. Candidates have been asked in mayoral debates about their support for Israel and whether they would visit – with Mamdani’s answers that he supports Israel’s right to exist as a state “with equal rights” and that as mayor he would stay in the city rather than travel to a foreign country drawing both praise and condemnation (including some from the left, who criticised him for recognising Israel at all). In recent days, Cuomo has seized on Mamdani’s position on the words “globalize the intifada”, saying they fuel “hate” and “murder”.Beth Miller, the political director of Jewish Voice for Peace’s advocacy arm, which has been canvassing for Mamdani, said that his success challenges the long-held wisdom that a New York mayor must support the Israeli government. “If you believe in safety, freedom, dignity, and justice for people here at home, you can’t have a Palestine exception to that,” she said.‘The status quo is being bent’New York’s Jews are a diverse constituency – ranging from some anti-Zionists and others variously critical of Israel to orthodox communities traditionally voting as a unified bloc for more conservative candidates. A recent poll of the city’s Jewish Democrats showed 31% supporting Cuomo, 20% backing Mamdani, and 18% behind Lander.In the middle are New York Jews who consistently vote Democratic and espouse a host of liberal and even progressive causes. Many are still reeling from the 7 October 2023 attacks in Israel, are uneasy about the tone of US protests against the war in Gaza, and are increasingly worried about Jewish safety, pointing to recent violent attacks in Washington DC, and Colorado, and defacing of Jewish businesses and synagogues in the city.View image in fullscreen
      Kaufman, of LGBTQ Zionists, said he wished there were “better options” but that many of his acquaintances were coalescing around Cuomo even as they have reservations about his past conduct, including the sexual assault allegations that ended his governorship. Others gravitated toward Lander, but were troubled by his endorsement of Mamdani. Some said they were “terrified” of the latter, pointing to his refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and his presence at protests where Houthi flags were on display.Cuomo has promised to run as an independent if Mamdani wins on Tuesday. Because Adams is running as an independent, and Mamdani is also expected to remain on the ballot as the Working Families Party candidate, the contest is far from over.But to some, the fact that an openly pro-Palestinian candidate has made it this far is a sign of a profound shift in the city’s politics.“The status quo is being bent,” said Awad. She said she cried when filling in her ballot early. “Hope is such a rare thing to feel these days.” More