Breaking
Supperious.com
Author

admin

Browsing
Politics

Fetterman backs Trump after Iran strikes: ‘The correct move’

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa, backed President Donald Trump’s decision to have the United States attack three of Iran’s most fortified underground nuclear sites amid rapidly escalating tensions in the Middle East and intensifying Israeli and U.S. military operations against Iranian targets. 

Fetterman called the move ‘correct’ in a post on X just minutes after Trump shared the news on Truth Social. 

‘As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,’ Fetterman said. ‘Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I’m grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.’ 

Trump declared the operation a ‘very successful attack’ targeting Iran’s key nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

‘We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, incluidng Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,’ Trump wrote in the announcement. ‘All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this.’

He concluded his statement with a call for de-escalation: ‘NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.’

The overnight strike against Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility involved six bunker buster bombs, Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Saturday night. Additionally, 30 Tomahawk missiles were launched from U.S. submarines in the attacks on Natanz and Isfahan facilities. 

The strike, marking a major escalation in an already volatile landscape, comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel to eradicate Iran’s offensive missile capabilities. 

The extent of the damage caused to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure so far remains unclear. 

Fox News’ Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
By
Politics

Pro-life movement confronts high abortion rates three years after Dobbs

A 50-year fight to put abortion back in the hands of states ended three years ago with the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs decision, but the pro-life movement is now grappling with a new reality — abortion remains prevalent.

Since securing the legal victory, abortion opponents’ concentration has become more fragmented as they contend with evidence that abortions have not decreased and could even be on the rise.

Their next big challenges, they say, include neutering the nation’s largest abortion vendor, Planned Parenthood, by targeting its funding. Restricting access to pills that terminate pregnancies is another top priority, as is investing in their preferred political candidates and ballot measures. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, told Fox News Digital in an interview that Dobbs prompted a ‘revolution,’ but she acknowledged that ‘there is a lot of work to do.’ She noted the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that abortions increased in the year after Dobbs and that at least 1.1 million occurred from July 2023 to June 2024.

‘People can sort of assume or just forget how big a moment [Dobbs] is. . . . It is shaking up and realigning public opinion based on where they really stand, so building consensus,’ Dannenfelser said. ‘It would be false to think that it could happen overnight, and we’re still right in the middle of it.’

She said she feels the prospect of defunding Planned Parenthood through a broader reconciliation bill in Congress is ‘strong.’ The measure would prohibit Medicaid funds for entities that perform abortions outside of rape, incest, and a threat to a mother’s life.

Planned Parenthood said in a statement in May, after the bill passed the Republican-led House, that the provision would eliminate other services besides abortion and could cause about 200 of its roughly 600 locations to shutter.

‘If this bill passes, people will lose access to essential, often lifesaving care — cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing, and yes, abortion,’ the organization said in a statement at the time.

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) eliminated a requirement that a customer must appear in person to receive mifepristone, the pill used to end a pregnancy. The pills became available by mail, and they are now being shipped all over the country from various organizations, including to most of the states that have abortion bans in place.

‘The abortion drugs that are being proliferated by big abortion and Planned Parenthood is a direct assault on the sovereignty of states,’ Dannenfelser said, noting that ‘the people of half the states have said this is the pro-life law that we want, so in order to undermine that and press their agenda, the abortion lobby is promoting abortion tourism across state lines.’

Dannenfelser also said her group, which, alongside its campaign fundraising arm, poured $92 million into the 2024 election cycle, is focused on next year’s midterm races. She noted she wants to maintain a ‘trifecta of pro-life administration, House and Senate.’ 

But some of those hoping to eliminate abortion say the current administration could do more to help their bottom line.

President Donald Trump granted clemency when he took office to nearly two dozen activists who were convicted of blocking abortion clinic entrances, and the president often touts that he appointed three justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

But in terms of the abortion pill, the Trump administration recently moved to dismiss a case in court aiming to tighten FDA restrictions on mifepristone. Trump has vowed to have Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is openly supportive of abortion access, conduct a study of the pill.

Katie Xavios, the national director of the American Life League, told Fox News Digital that she believes Trump ‘really hasn’t been the staunchest pro-life advocate.’

She said mifepristone distribution has ‘no guardrails.’ Dozens of organizations now offer easy access to the pill. Xavios said abortions-by-mail have become the ‘wild west,’ and that the government would have to work aggressively to contain it at this point.

‘I don’t think we’ll ever see anybody take that away unless we can really get a very truly pro-life person in office,’ Xavios said.

American Life League is a Catholic grassroots organization, and Xavios said one of her group’s efforts is to instill values in children that would lead them to opt against abortion if they were faced with the decision in adulthood.

Dobbs was not the win for her side that people have framed it to be, she said.

‘I think we’re still kind of seeing the reverberations of that a little bit in the movement, where a lot of people are struggling to find a new legal fight,’ Xavios said. ‘But I think the real issue that we’re left with is it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not if people don’t really respect and value the dignity of the pre-born.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
By
Politics

‘Baby steps’: Leader Thune details his work to corral Republicans behind Trump’s legislative vision

Senate Majority Leader John Thune is weathering headwinds in his own conference over outstanding concerns in President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ that threaten to derail the legislation, but he’s taking it in stride and standing firm that the megabill will make it to the president’s desk by July 4.

‘We have to hit it, and you know whether that means it’s the end of next week, or whether we roll into that Fourth of July week,’ the South Dakota Republican told Fox News Digital during an interview from his leadership suite.

‘But if we have to go into that week, we will,’ he continued. ‘I think it’s that important. And you know what I’ve seen around here, at least in the past, my experience, if there’s no deadline, things tend to drag on endlessly.’

Senate Republicans have been working on their version of Trump’s mammoth bill, which includes priorities to make his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, sweeping changes to healthcare, Biden-era energy credits and deep spending cuts, among others, since the beginning of June.

Now that each portion of the bill has been released, Thune is eyeing having the bill on the floor by the middle of next week. But, he still has to wrangle disparate factions within the Senate GOP to get on board with the bill.

‘It is a work in progress,’ Thune said. ‘It’s, you know, sometimes it’s kind of incremental baby steps.’

A cohort of fiscal hawks, led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are unhappy with the level of spending cuts in the bill. Some Senate Republicans want to achieve at least $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson has remained firm in his belief that the bill should go deeper and return to pre-COVID-19 pandemic spending levels.

Others, including Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, are upset with tweaks to Medicaid, and the impact those changes could have on rural hospitals and working people on the healthcare program’s benefit rolls.

Thune has to strike a precarious balancing act to sate the concerns of his conference, given that he can only afford to lose three votes. It’s a reality he acknowledged and described as trying to find ‘the sweet spot’ where he can advance the bill back to the House.

He’s been meeting with the factions individually, communicating with the White House and working to ‘make sure everybody’s rolling in the same direction.’

‘Everybody has different views about how to do that, but in the end, it’s cobbling together the necessary 51 votes, so we’re working with anybody who is offering feedback,’ he said.

Collins and others are working on the side to create a provider relief fund that could offer a salve to the lingering issues about the crackdown on the Medicaid provider rate tax in the bill.

The Senate Finance Committee went further than the House’s freeze of the provider tax rate, or the amount that state Medicaid programs pay to healthcare providers on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, for non-Affordable Care Act expansion states, and included a provision that lowers the rate in expansion states annually until it hits 3.5%.

‘We’re going to do everything we can to make sure that, for example, rural hospitals have some additional assistance to sort of smooth that transition,’ Thune said.

Thune, who is a member of the Finance panel, noted that ‘we all agree that the provider tax has been gamed’ and ‘abused’ by blue states like New York and California, and argued that the changes were done to help ‘right the ship’ in the program.

‘I think that’s why the sort of off-ramp, soft-landing approach [from] the Finance committee makes sense, but these are substantial changes,’ he said. ‘But on the other hand, if we don’t start doing some things to reform and strengthen these programs, these programs aren’t going to be around forever, because we’re not going to be able to afford them.’

The Senate’s product won’t be the end of the reconciliation process, however. The changes in the bill will have to be green-lit by the House, and one change in particular to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap already has a cohort of blue state House Republicans furious and threatening to kill the bill.

The Senate’s bill, for now, left the cap unchanged at $10,000 from the policy ushered in by Trump’s first-term tax cuts, a figure that Senate Republicans view as a placeholder while negotiations continue.

Indeed, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., is working with members of the SALT caucus in the House to find a compromise on the cap. But the appetite to keep the House-passed $40,000 cap isn’t strong in the Senate.  

‘The passion in the Senate is as strong as it is in the House against changing the current policy and law in a way that… favors high-tax states to the detriment and disadvantage of low tax states,’ he said. ‘And so it’s the emotion that you see in the House side on that particular issue is matched in the Senate in a different direction.’

Meanwhile, as negotiations continue behind the scenes on ways to address issues among Senate Republicans, the Senate Parliamentarian is currently chunking through each section of the greater ‘big, beautiful bill.’ 

The parliamentarian’s role is to determine whether policies within each section of the bill comport with the Byrd Rule, which is the arcane set of parameters that govern the budget reconciliation process.

Thune has made clear that he would not overrule that parliamentarian on Trump’s megabill, and re-upped that position once more. The reconciliation process gives either party in power the opportunity to pass legislation on party lines and skirt the Senate filibuster, but it has to adhere to the Byrd Rule’s requirements that policy deals with spending and revenue.

However, he countered that Senate Republicans planned to take a page from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., when Democrats rammed former President Joe Biden’s agenda through Congress.

‘The Democrats with the [Inflation Reduction Act] and [American Rescue Plan Act], for that matter, they dramatically expanded the scope of reconciliation and what’s eligible for consideration,’ he said.

‘So, we’ve used that template, and we’re pushing as hard as we can to make sure that it allows us to accomplish our agenda, or at least as much of our agenda as possible, and fit within the parameters of what’s allowed,’ he continued. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
By
World News

At least 8 dead after hot air balloon accident in southern Brazil

At least eight people are dead following an accident involving a hot air balloon in Brazil’s southern region of Santa Catarina on Saturday, according to the local governor.

“We are all shocked by the accident involving a balloon in Praia Grande, this Saturday morning. Our rescue team is already on site… So far, we have confirmed eight deaths” local governor Jorginho Mello said on X.

He said 21 people were on board, the other 13 survived.

Video posted to social media shows a hot air balloon catch fire while in the sky. The balloon then deflates and falls to the ground.

“We saw two people fall from above, and soon after the basket broke, and the balloon fell,” an eyewitness told local media Jornal Razão.

The eyewitness said she ran to see where the balloon fell and saw two survivors, “a woman covered in mud and in a state of shock, and a man with her who was limping,” as well as two bodies.

Praia Grande is a common destination for hot-air ballooning, a popular activity in some parts of Brazil’s south during June festivities that celebrate Catholic saints such as Saint John, AP reports.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Keep Reading
By
Politics

ROBERT MAGINNIS: Don’t be misled—Iran isn’t days away from a nuclear bomb

As tensions between Israel and Iran escalate, the airwaves are full of alarmist commentary. Military analysts and political leaders alike are warning that Tehran is ‘on the brink’ of possessing a nuclear weapon. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt even claimed, ‘Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon … and it would take a couple weeks to complete the production of that weapon.’ This is not just a misstatement. It is misinformation—and it risks pushing the United States into a hasty and unjustified war.

The reality is far more complex. Enriched uranium—even at weapons-grade levels—is only one component of a long, technically demanding process required to create a functional nuclear bomb. Understanding why this alarmism is premature requires a clear breakdown of what’s actually involved in building such a device.

According to U.S. experts and declassified intelligence assessments, a nuclear weapon requires at least the following elements:

  1. Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU): Iran would need U-235 enriched to 90%, but that alone is insufficient.
  2. Precision Shaping: The uranium must be machined into a flawless sphere, requiring high-end metallurgy and computing.
  3. Explosive Lenses: Carefully placed charges must detonate simultaneously to compress the core—a method called implosion.
  4. Trigger Mechanisms: These detonators must be precisely synchronized; even a microsecond delay renders the weapon ineffective.
  5. Reflectors and Tampers: Elements like beryllium are required to maintain compression and sustain the chain reaction.
  6. Weaponization: The bomb must be ruggedized into a functional assembly, including casing and electronics that can survive delivery.
  7. Delivery Systems: The weapon must be fitted onto a missile, aircraft, or another platform capable of reaching its target.

In addition to enriched uranium and implosion mechanisms, a functional nuclear weapon requires several other complex components that Iran has not demonstrably mastered. These include a neutron initiator to trigger the chain reaction, precision fusing and arming systems, and reentry vehicle technology if the weapon is to be missile-delivered. A credible nuclear arsenal also demands sub-critical testing infrastructure to validate design functionality and safety protocols to control explosive yield. These technical requirements involve advanced engineering, testing, and materials—none of which are confirmed to exist in Iran’s program today.

Each of these steps represents a serious technological challenge. While Iran has demonstrated enrichment capabilities, there is no credible open-source evidence that it has mastered the other essential components. The most difficult hurdle—weaponization—remains the most classified and technically advanced part of the entire process.

Yet Israel’s recent week of strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities—including the deeply buried Fordow enrichment site near Qom—were reportedly driven by fears that Iran had crossed the 90% enrichment threshold. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Iran now possesses enough enriched uranium for ‘nine nuclear weapons’ and the IDF’s Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir warned of an ‘immediate operational necessity’ as Iran had ‘reached the point of no return.’ However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and U.S. intelligence assessments have not publicly corroborated any progress toward assembling a usable bomb.

The Fordow facility, often portrayed as a doomsday site, is not a weapons lab. It is an enrichment plant—too deep to strike easily, but also too constrained to test, assemble, or launch a nuclear weapon. That fact alone should prompt the question: Why strike now?

Netanyahu’s warnings are not new. In 2012, he told NBC’s Meet the Press that Iran would have enough material for a bomb in ‘six or seven months,’ urging the U.S. to draw a ‘red line’ before it was ‘too late.’ The dire prediction never materialized. No bomb was built. No red line crossed. The episode offers a lesson in how worst-case scenarios, not verified facts, can drive the conversation.

Before the United States commits to military action, President Trump—and the American people—deserve clear answers: Does Iran possess the necessary components, the design knowledge, and the capacity to assemble and deliver a functioning weapon? Or are we risking war based on fear and incomplete intelligence?

We have been here before. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. That war cost thousands of lives, almost three trillion dollars to the present, destabilized a region, and damaged U.S. credibility for decades. To repeat such a mistake would be strategic malpractice of the highest order.

None of this downplays the threat Iran poses. The regime’s support for proxy militias, its ballistic missile program, and its pattern of obstructing IAEA inspections are deeply troubling. But deterrence and diplomacy—not preemptive war—must be the first response. The United States retains a full suite of tools: cyber operations, regional missile defense, economic sanctions, and multilateral diplomacy. Military action should remain the final option—not the opening move.

As Australian novelist Kate Forsyth reminds us: ‘War is an unpredictable beast. Once unleashed, it runs like a rabid dog, ravening friend or foe alike.’ Let us not unleash that beast over uranium that is dangerous—but not yet detonatable.

President Trump, Congress, and our intelligence community must deliver a full, honest accounting. What does the United States know—not suspect—about Iran’s nuclear readiness? What pieces are still missing? What tools short of war can ensure they stay missing?

These are the questions that must be answered before another missile is fired. Panic is not a policy. Precision is.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
By
Politics

Americans agree with Trump that Iran poses threat to United States: poll

Amid a week of daily attacks between Middle Eastern juggernauts Israel and Iran, President Donald Trump has repeatedly drilled home a key point.

‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,’ the president wrote on social media.

And speaking with reporters in the Oval Office at the White House, Trump highlighted, ‘I’ve been saying for 20 years, maybe longer, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.’

It’s a stance U.S. presidents have taken for a couple of decades. And it appears most Americans agree with Trump and his presidential predecessors when it comes to the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of registered voters questioned in a new Fox News national survey said they think Iran poses a real security threat to the U.S. That’s a 13-point boost since Fox News last asked the question six years ago.

And the poll, conducted June 13-16, indicates wide support across the partisan spectrum. Majorities of Republicans (82%), Democrats (69%) and Independents (62%) agreed that Iran poses a threat.

The survey also showed that 78% of those questioned said they were very or extremely concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb. And eight in 10 said what happens in the Middle East does matter in the U.S.

Daron Shaw, a veteran GOP pollster and the Republican partner on the Fox News poll, said that ‘the increased sense that Iran constitutes a threat is real, but it also reflects the unique timing and circumstances surrounding this poll.’

‘The poll was in the field as images of Iranian missiles falling on Tel Aviv dominated television and the internet — the immediacy and clarity of the conflict undoubtedly contributes to how voters gauge what is at risk,’ noted Shaw, who is also a politics professor and chair at the University of Texas.

There was a similar response regarding the threat from Iran in a Ronald Reagan Institute national survey conducted earlier this month, before Israel’s initial attack last week sparked the daily bombardments by both nations.

Eighty-four percent of those questioned in the poll, which was shared first with Fox News, said preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons matters to U.S. security and prosperity. 

Trump is weighing whether the U.S. should join Israel in striking Iran to cripple its nuclear program and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

‘President Trump doesn’t often get a political softball sent his way. His decision to support Israel’s attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran and the prospective decision to deal a limited but decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions by striking the Fordow facility can prove to be political mana from heaven,’ veteran political scientist Wayne Lesperance said. 

Lesperance, president of New England College, noted that ‘If the President makes the case clearly and firmly to the American people, polling data suggests he would enjoy support from his own party, Democrats and Independents. What’s more, Trump’s decision and subsequent action would crowd out any of the issues or coverage like immigration, the budget, or tariffs in the near term. Politically, a decision to act against Iran is smart politics.’

But Lesperance cautioned that ‘this all assumes that the attacks are successful. It also assumes Americans are tolerant of the repercussions of backlash over the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.’

Fox News’ Dana Blanton and Victoria Balara contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
By
World News

Sunken Bayesian superyacht lifted partially out of water in salvage operation

Ten months after the luxury superyacht Bayesian sank off the coast of Sicily in a sudden storm, salvage crews managed to lift it 50 meters (164 feet) from the seabed on Friday afternoon, the company running the $30 million recovery operation said.

The superyacht was scheduled to be lifted at the weekend, but salvage crews from TMC Marine said the process went faster than anticipated.

The top of the hull is now visible above the surface and TMC Marine said it will be lifted fully out of the water on Saturday.

The 56-meter (184-foot) superyacht went down in less than a minute when hurricane-force winds swept through the area on August 19, 2024. Seven people, including British tech tycoon Mike Lynch and his 18-year-old daughter Hannah, died. Fifteen people survived, including Lynch’s wife, whose company owns the $40 million vessel, the ship’s captain and all but one crew member.

A Dutch salvage worker also died in an underwater explosion when the salvage operation began in May, prompting the company to replace most of the human divers with underwater robots.

That change in strategy led to “accelerated progress” in the operation to attach the lifting straps to the hull, which was originally scheduled to finish by the end of the month, the company said.

Marcus Cave, head of naval architecture and a director of TMC Marine, said in a statement Friday: “The salvage team has made very substantive progress in the last 10 days. They are now preparing for the final, complex and delicate lifting operation, to bring Bayesian to the surface and ultimately into port.

“This is a challenging programme of activity, that will be progressed in a measured and systematic way.”

Earlier this week, salvage workers used a remote-controled, diamond-wire precision-cutting tool to remove the vessel’s 72-meter (236-foot) mast.

Once the mast was removed, the salvage company was able to finish attaching eight steel lifting slings to the hull, and partially parbuckled the ship to an upright position on the seabed.

Final stabilizers, hoses and other rigging were attached before the yacht was lifted by one of Europe’s most powerful floating cranes, which had been brought in for the job.

The Bayesian sank with 18,000 liters of fuel on board, which has not been removed. Oil booms were laid around the work site to protect the area from potential pollution.

On Friday afternoon, the top of the yacht, now covered in clay and algae, emerged out of the water. It is now being held in an upright position to allow water to drain out before it is taken to the Sicilian port of Termini Imerse on Monday.

There, it will be placed in a specially built steel cradle and sequestered while investigators carry out forensic investigations that may reveal the definitive cause of the accident.

The ship’s captain, James Cutfield, and two crew members are currently under investigation for their role in the deadly accident, and investigators need to examine the ship to determine whether human error or a design flaw led to the sinking.

They will also secure any possessions, including what are believed to be watertight safes in which Lynch kept encrypted hard drives.

Remote-controlled submersibles were previously used to recover the yacht’s anchor and boom, which were brought to the surface in May. An uninflated lifeboat and deck furniture have also already been recovered.

Lynch had organized the cruise to celebrate his acquittal in June 2024 on 15 felony charges in a United States court tied to the $11 billion sale of one of his companies to Hewlett-Packard.

His co-defendant, Stephen Chamberlain, also acquitted on all charges, died on the same day the Bayesian went down, two days after he was struck by a car while out jogging in the United Kingdom.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Keep Reading
By
World News

Britain’s lawmakers vote to allow assisted dying, after fraught national debate

Lawmakers in Britain have narrowly approved a bill to legalize assisted dying for terminally ill people, capping a fraught debate in Parliament and across the country that cut across political, religious and legal divides.

MPs passed the bill by 314 votes to 291, in their final say on the question. The bill – which has split lawmakers and sparked impassioned conversations with their constituents the breadth of Britain – will now move to the House of Lords for its final rounds of scrutiny.

Friday’s vote puts Britain firmly on track to join a small club of nations that have legalized the process, and one of the largest by population to allow it.

It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves. Two doctors and a panel would need to sign off on the choice.

Canada, New Zealand, Spain and most of Australia allow assisted dying in some form, as do several US states, including Oregon, Washington and California.

A charged debate

Friday’s vote in Parliament coincided with a charged public debate about whether the state should be dictating the choices available to Britons in the final moments of their lives.

Proponents included Esther Rantzen, a BBC TV presenter with advanced lung cancer, who argued that the choice would save millions from unnecessary suffering.

“If we don’t vote to change the law today, what does that mean?,” asked Kim Leadbeater, the MP who introduced the bill last year. “It means we will have many more years of heartbreaking stories from terminally ill people and their families, of pain and trauma, suicide attempts, PTSD, lonely trips to (clinics in) Switzerland, police investigations.”

The option, she said, is “not a choice between living and dying: it is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die.”

But opponents have criticized the bill on religious and ethical grounds, and raised issues with a legislative process they accuse of being opaque.

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown argued that fixing Britain’s strained end-of-live care system should be prioritized, writing in a rare intervention in The Guardian that the bill “would privilege the legal right to assisted dying without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death.”

Seriously ill people “need the health and social care system fixing first,” Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft said in Parliament Friday. “They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die.”

More scrutiny expected

Friday’s debate was concluded with a free vote, meaning that MPs were allowed to decide for or against the bill according to their conscience, and free from any party-line whipping. It was the third and final time MPs cast a vote on the topic, after an earlier reading in November.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer was among those who voted in favor of the bill, despite objections from some in the opposing camp that he abstain to prevent influencing other lawmakers.

Even though the bill passed, some of its critics were emboldened by Friday’s results; the effort lost the support of 16 MPs compared to November, after months of controversy over changes made to the bill during its committee oversight stage.

Most notably, an earlier provision that stipulated each case of assisted dying must be approved by two doctors and then a judge was removed, amid concerns over courts being clogged up. The bill was tweaked to instead require the approval of two doctors and a three-person panel.

“We clearly won the argument,” Tim Farron, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats who had opposed the bill, wrote on X on Friday following the vote.

“With a tiny majority and growing opposition from expert groups, the Lords will now rightly feel that they have the right to disagree,” Farron said in a now-deleted post. “To my pleasant surprise, this is not over!”

A handful of countries allow some form of assisted dying, but the particulars of the law differ widely. Britain’s proposed bill is broadly in line with the Oregon model, and does not go as far as Switzerland, the Netherlands and Canada, which allow assisted death in cases of suffering, not just for terminally ill people. It differs from euthanasia, the process in which another person deliberately ends someone’s life to relieve suffering.

It is currently a crime to help somebody die in England and Wales, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Performing euthanasia on a person, meanwhile, is considered murder or manslaughter.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Keep Reading
By
World News

Trump’s Gulf Arab allies race to avoid all-out war in Iran

Fearing the repercussions of a total regime collapse in Iran, Gulf Arab states have intensified their outreach to the Trump administration and Tehran over the past week.

The United Arab Emirates, a US ally that has long been opposed to an unsupervised Iran nuclear program, has been in contact with officials in Tehran and Washington to avoid further escalation, according to a top official, amid fears that instability in Iran could affect the region.

“We’re following the situation very closely… our diplomacy is working hard like many other countries,” Anwar Gargash, adviser to the UAE president, said on Friday. “Concerns have to be resolved diplomatically… there are many issues in the region (and) if we choose to tackle everything with a hammer, nothing will be left unbroken.”

Israel began an unprecedented attack on Iran last week, killing its top military brass as well as several nuclear scientists and destroyed part of its nuclear program. Iran has responded with a barrage of missile strikes on Israeli cities.

Gargash, who delivered a letter from US President Donald Trump to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in March calling for nuclear talks, said any military escalation to the conflict will be “detrimental” for the whole region.

“This is setting us back. The language of conflict is overpowering the new language of de-escalation and economic prosperity for the region,” Gargash said.

Across the Gulf, growing anxiety about the conflict is driving efforts to prevent further escalation.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke with Trump and called for a de-escalation hours after Israel struck Iran on June 13. The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, also spoke to the president and called for the crisis to be resolved “through diplomatic means.”

“We have been making all the possible communication between all the parties regionally and abroad. These talks between us have been about finding a way out of the rabbit hole when it comes to this escalation,” the Qatari foreign ministry spokesperson Majed Al Ansari said Tuesday.

Last month, Trump was feted with grand welcomes and trillion-dollar deals when he visited three Gulf Arab nations for the first presidential visit of his second term. At the time, Trump praised the “birth of a modern Middle East” and signaled his intent to sign a deal with Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear bomb.

But after Israel struck and killed Iran’s military leadership and nuclear scientists, Trump shifted his rhetoric, teasing a possible US military intervention on Iran.

The president’s threats have his Arab allies worried and fearing Iranian reprisal attacks against the US on their soil, where the US has a significant military presence. Major exporters of energy, the Gulf states also fear that Iran may shut the Strait of Hormuz on its southern shore, through which a third of seaborne oil passes.

Nightmare scenario

Gulf Arab states, long critical of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its support for proxy militias across the Middle East, have in recent years softened their stance toward Tehran, pivoting toward diplomacy and rapprochement to avoid conflict.

Experts warn that a US attack on Iran could draw it into a quagmire even more challenging than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – a drawn-out confrontation that could last the duration of Trump’s presidency and exact a heavy toll on American lives and resources at Israel’s behest.

“I don’t think anyone wants to see Iran slide to chaos, I think there is a broader desire and preference to deal with one bad actor rather than multiple bad actors,” he said.

“If there is in fact a diplomatic breakthrough… where Iran’s nuclear ambitions towards a nuclear weapon at least are capped, Iran is much weakened and stability returns, that’s a very positive outcome for (Gulf states),” he said.

“I would have to say, though, that the concern is that (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu drags the region and drags President Trump into further escalation by perhaps taking out Iran’s ability to export oil,” he added. “That might then take us in a much more negative direction in terms of blowback against Gulf (oil) facilities.”

Trump’s announcement on Thursday of a two-week diplomatic window now offers his Gulf Arab allies breathing space to push for de-escalation, following a week of unprecedented regional clashes that left the Middle East rattled and on edge.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Keep Reading
By
World News

Israel has threatened to kill Iran’s supreme leader. Here’s what could come next

As US President Donald Trump weighs joining Israel’s assault on Iran, questions are mounting over whether such an intervention could trigger regime change in Tehran – an outcome that risks splintering the country and sending shockwaves across the region.

Home to long-simmering separatist movements that have vied for power and independence, Iran could face internal fragmentation and chaos if its government falls, experts warn.

After reportedly rejecting an Israeli plan to kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump stated this week that Iran’s Supreme Leader is an “easy target.”

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Tuesday. “He is an easy target but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not ruled out targeting Khamenei either, saying that the death of the Supreme Leader is “not going to escalate the conflict, it’s going to end the conflict.”

On Thursday, Defense Minister Israel Katz went further, declaring that Khamenei cannot be allowed to “continue to exist” after an Iranian missile struck a hospital in Israel.

Iran is a nation of more than 90 million people and home one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations. Its borders have remained more or less stable for about 100 years. The Islamic Republic has managed to preserve those frontiers despite a diverse population of ethnic and religious groups, many of whom have sought autonomy at various points.

But the comments from Israeli and US officials have prompted speculation over what Iran might look like if Khamenei is killed – with experts warning that the country could face a range of scenarios, including regime collapse or even civil war.

Why regime failure in Iran may lead to chaos

The 86-year-old cleric has ruled Iran for more than 35 years as its highest authority, rising to power a decade after the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew a US-backed monarch.

Over the years, he consolidated power and ruled with an iron grip under strict Islamic law. He crushed wave after wave of protests demanding social freedoms – each with increasing ferocity – and expanded Iran’s reach far beyond its borders through a network of proxy militias.

With his fate in question, attention is turning to who might succeed him, and how that uncertainty could unleash greater unrest.

The Supreme Leader is elected by the 88-member Assembly of Experts for life and doesn’t officially name a successor. It is unclear who might replace Khamenei, but that process may take place as separatist groups who have long resented the Islamic Republic seek to take advantage of what they may see as an opportunity.

Israel has already killed several of Iran’s key military figures, and experts say that the regime is now at its weakest.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC, said that regime change would require Israel or the United States having a figure in mind to replace Khamenei and send troops to the country.

The figure Israel is likely to favor is Reza Pahlavi, the US-based son of the deposed Iranian monarch who was ousted in 1979. Pahlavi has voiced support for Israel’s actions, drawing praise from some in the Iranian diaspora and accusations of betrayal from many others.

“Soon in Tehran,” Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli posted on X on Friday, along with a picture of himself shaking hands with a smiling Pahlavi. Pahlavi told BBC News on Sunday that Israel’s conflict with Iran was an opportunity to bring down the Iranian regime.

If the Supreme Leader is killed and the Guardian Council delays naming a successor, the risk of instability could grow, experts say.

A possible outcome of Khamenei’s potential killing is total regime collapse, Parsi said.

Several scenarios could ensue if the Iranian regime falls, none of which is expected to be to the liking of the US or neighboring states, experts said.

Hamed Mousavi, associate professor of International Relations at the University of Tehran, warned that military intervention “rarely leads to democratization.”

One outcome could be that other elements in the Iranian military assume power. They are unlikely to seek diplomatic routes with Israel or the US, but could take a more hawkish approach that sees possession of a nuclear bomb as the only deterrent to more attacks, Parsi said.

Military factions that could take over are “not going to be the type of regime that the US may have had in mind,” Parsi said.

Another possible scenario is descent into chaos, as Iran’s multiple ethnic groups vie for power.

Iran’s fractious social fabric

Iran has a diverse population, including Persians, Azeris, Arabs, Baloch and Kurds. Under Khamenei’s decades-long rule, the Islamic Republic largely managed to contain civil and ethnic unrest, despite the mistreatment faced by some groups.

Minorities faced discrimination in “their access to education, employment, adequate housing and political office,” according to Amnesty International last year. “Continued underinvestment in regions populated by ethnic minorities exacerbated poverty and marginalization,” it said.

Azeris make up around 16% of Iran’s overall population, according to Minority Rights Group. The Shiite group is the largest and most well-integrated minority in the Islamic Republic but has nonetheless faced inequity.

Arabs constitute up to 4 million people, and they have also been subjected to marginalization over the years.

A group of tribes speaking the Balochi language, the Baloch people make up nearly 5 million of Iran’s population. The predominantly Sunni group extends into neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan, raising the possibility of separatist conflict spilling over the borders.

The “Army of Justice” organization, a Baloch Sunni militant group, has shown support for Israel’s strikes on Iran, saying in a statement: “It is clear that the current attack is not on Iran, but on the Velayat-e-Faqih (ruling) regime , it is God’s will that the ground has been prepared for us, the people of Iran, to make the best use of this vacuum.”

Kurds make up some 10% of Iran’s population and are mostly settled along the borders with Iraq and Turkey. They have been subject to “deep-rooted discrimination,” Amnesty said.

The Kurdistan Freedom Party, a nationalist and separatist militant group in Iran, published a statement backing Israel’s strikes, saying it supports “the process of destroying Iran’s military and security capabilities.”

A Kurdish rebellion in Iran would also be a major concern for neighboring Iraq and Turkey, both of which have large Kurdish minorities that have sought independence.

Another exiled group that has garnered support from US conservatives is the Mujahadin-e Khalq (MeK), a shadowy dissident group that was once a US-designated terrorist organization but today counts prominent anti-Iran politicians as key allies. Iran accuses it of terrorism, saying it carried out a series of attacks in the 1980s. The MeK denies those charges.

It is one of the best-organized opposition groups confronting the Islamic Republic, but it has little support among Iranians, largely due to its violent past and for having supported Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during his almost decade-long war with Iran.

If Iran’s regime falls, “there would be support for ethnic separatist groups by the Israelis, and perhaps the US,” Parsi said. This would lead to a situation where remnants of the state are going to be consumed with fighting separatists.

Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, executive director of the Nonviolent Initiative for Democracy and a former Iranian lawmaker who opposes the current regime, expressed fears that Iran may descend into civil conflict if the current rule falls.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Keep Reading
By