US warns of ‘real risk’ Iran intervenes in Israel war despite warnings
Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, said the country cannot remain a spectator in Israel’s war against Hamas. At the same time, the U.S. is reiterating no outsiders should intervene in Israel’s conflict. The comments are a latest example of tensions rising as Iranian rhetoric is pushing back against U.S. warnings.
“If stopping the aggression against Gaza does not succeed, the expansion of the war fronts is not excluded and its possibility increases every hour,” Amir-Abdollahian told Al Jazeera. “The continued aggression and the absence of a political solution add fuel to the fire and things may get out of control.”
U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Oct. 15, and was directly asked if there is a real risk that Iran intervenes.
“We don’t have some specific intelligence the threat is different today from yesterday,” Sullivan said. “The threat yesterday was real, the threat today is real. There is a risk of an escalation of this conflict, the opening of a second front in the north and of course Iran’s involvement. That is a risk and a risk we’ve been mindful of from the start.”
While the White House is acknowledging a potential risk, Iran’s top leaders have put it in simple terms. On Sunday, Amir-Abdollahian warned “the hands of all parties in the region are on the trigger.”
Axios reported the foreign minister delivered a direct message to Israel over the weekend to warn Iran “would have no choice but to intervene” if Israel continues its retaliatory attack in Gaza against Hamas.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave all indication it would continue necessary military operations to exterminate Hamas.
Despite the threats coming from Iran’s foreign minister, a White House official told NBC that they “haven’t seen any specific indication that Iran is trying to deepen or widen the conflict.”
Sullivan said the U.S. has now sent two aircraft carriers — the USS Gerald R. Ford and the USS Eisenhower — into the eastern Mediterranean as a message of deterrence for anyone looking to escalate the conflict. Whether Iran believes the U.S. would respond militarily could be a determining factor in its choice to stay at bay or join the fight.
No one was hurt in the attack, and the U.S. spoke out on Monday, Sept 25, condemning the attack.
Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla said on social media that this marked the second attack on Cuba’s Embassy. The first was when a man opened fire on the building in April, 2020.
According to Rodríguez Parrilla, no injuries were reported in that attack.
In the evening of today, Sep 24, the Cuban embassy in the US was the target of a terrorist attack by an individual who launched 2 Molotov cocktails. The staff suffered no harm. Details are being worked out.
This is the second violent attack against #Cuba's diplomatic mission ⤵️
“First of all, attacks and threats against diplomatic facilities are unacceptable,” Miller said. “We are in contact with Cuban Embassy officials and consistent with our obligations under the Vienna Conventions, the department is committed to the safety and security of diplomatic facilities and the diplomats who work in them.”
The attack comes just after Cuba’s leader Miguel Díaz-Canel, who was attending some United Nations events in New York, traveled back to Cuba.
In a statement, the U.S. Secret Service said there was no fire or significant damage to the building. An investigation is ongoing and as of Monday, Sept. 25, no one has been taken into custody.
Gas prices at historic highs as Russia, Saudi Arabia extend oil cuts
Gas prices in the United States rose to the highest seasonal level in more than a decade on the same day Russia and Saudi Arabia agreed to extend their voluntary oil production cuts through the end of 2023. The move was expected to trim 1.3 million barrels of crude out of the global market and boost energy prices.
State-run Russian news agency Tass quoted Alexander Novak, Russia’s deputy prime minister and former energy minister, saying Moscow would continue its 300,000 barrel a day cut.
Saudi Arabia’s announcement, carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency, said the country still would monitor the market and could take further action if necessary.
“This additional voluntary cut comes to reinforce the precautionary efforts made by OPEC+ countries with the aim of supporting the stability and balance of oil markets,” the Saudi Press Agency report said, citing an unnamed Energy Ministry official.
The oil cut announcements from Russia and Saudi Arabia sent the price of benchmark Brent crude above $90 a barrel in trading on Tuesday, Sept. 6. Brent had largely hovered between $75 and $85 a barrel since October of 2022. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan was asked about the price jump at a briefing Tuesday.
“As far as I’m concerned, the most important thing that the president is focused on is just trying to do everything within his toolkit to be able to get lower prices for consumers at the gas pump in the United States,” Sullivan said. “It’s really the price of a gallon of gas for the American consumer, the question of which country is doing what, here or there, that is going to be his ultimate metric for whether we’re succeeding or not.”
The national average price for a gallon of gas in the U.S. was $3.803 on Wednesday, Sept. 6, according to AAA. That’s down slightly from Tuesday’s national average of $3.811, the second highest average price on record going back to 1994.
What happens if Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine?
For more than two decades, Vladimir Putin hasn’t just led Russia, he’s pushed out any who would oppose him. Many believe it’s why he invaded Ukraine, and why he never goes too long without rattling the saber.
“I think what Putin is doing, is he’s trying to, with the limited resources he has, but with the nuclear weapons he has, make sure that Russia is always at the center of attention, because that gives him power. And he does it by scaring people. And he does it through nuclear blackmail,” said Dr. Tyler White, director of the National Security Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Straight Arrow News interviewed Dr. White previously about how and why Russia might use nuclear weapons, but then wanted to know what a Western response to those potential attacks would look like.
Access the previous report in our series on nuclear weapons and the Ukraine War below:
If Putin gave the order to deploy a nuclear weapon, what would happen next?
Democracies fight angry. Having a bunch of democracies on board, I think, makes a force that no other no other country can counter.
Dr. Tyler White, director of National Security Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
“In political science, we have this sort of term gambling for resurrection, right? What happens when all the chips are down, and you need a big move to try to change your situation?” White said. “So, if he’s looking at what could be a resounding defeat, does he use nuclear weapons as a way of trying to gamble for resurrection, right? To try to turn the tide in a really, really important way, particularly if he feels his own personal future is at stake, right? And I think, to him, that’s way more important than what happens to Russia.”
White said any Western response to Russia using nukes would be a coordinated effort through NATO, the military alliance comprised of more than 30 European nations and the U.S.
“I don’t think we think about this enough, NATO is special,” White said. “NATO is really special, and the way the United States locks itself into NATO, to defend a whole bunch of other countries, that’s special. That’s special in history. And so, you know, it gives us a tremendous amount of power, though. Because people, once you have them on board and they agree with the decision, you know, as someone once said, ‘democracies fight angry.’ Having a bunch of democracies on board, I think, makes a force that no other no other country can encounter.”
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an American think tank, said there are three scenarios that could lead to Russia resorting to nukes in Ukraine: as a signaling device, as a battlefield weapon, and as a weapon of terror.
NATO’s response to Russia using nukes depends on the scenario.
If Russia decides to detonate a nuke as a signaling device, it could come in the form of a test at a remote location, where casualties would be low and the nuclear fallout limited.
“So, he could find a target like Snake Island or something like that and detonate a nuclear weapon there. He’s not going to kill very many people. But he’s going to demonstrate, ‘Hey, I just broke the nuclear taboo and I’m willing to use these weapons. Your move,’ right?”
White and the CFR agree Russia detonating a nuke to remind the world it still has nuclear weapons would probably not generate an overwhelming military response from NATO, other than the standard finger-wagging that typically accompanies nuclear weapons testing.
It could, however, damage Russia’s relations with China. Putin is more dependent on China than ever as Western sanctions cripple Russia’s economy and further isolate it on the world stage.
Under the second scenario, Putin may deploy tactical nuclear weapons during a battle inside of Ukraine. Straight Arrow News has covered these weapons before: tactical nukes are powerful enough to destroy cities, but they’re more precise than ballistic missiles, designed for use on battlefields where militaries want to create maximum effect with minimal material.
The CFR said Putin may decide to deploy tactical nukes against energy infrastructure targets to weaken Ukraine’s will to fight.
“He could also use them on the battlefield to destroy formations, right?” White said. “He could try to wipe out a Ukrainian, you know, offensive or something like that. And that would deal a significant military blow to the Ukrainians, but also again, breaks the nuclear taboo.”
Russia using tactical nukes would further fracture its relationship with China, potentially pushing the “friendship without limits” to the brink of collapse.
As far as how the U.S. and NATO would respond, the public policy is purposefully ambiguous. President Joe Biden said any use of nukes in Ukraine, on any scale, would be unacceptable and would entail severe consequences. The ambiguity in the policy allows for a range of responses, again, depending on how Russia detonates its bombs.
If Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, at the very least Western weapons shipments and humanitarian aid would skyrocket. Whatever economic sanctions haven’t been imposed yet probably would be, and Russia would cement its status as a diplomatic pariah on the world stage.
“Putin is constantly calculating, you know, what is my exit strategy? What does it look like? What can I live with? What’s acceptable?” White said. “But he’s not the only person who gets to make that decision, right? I mean, reality in this case has a vote as well. I think what we worry about is that he will come to the conclusion that this is his best option. But again, there are some significant issues for him to do that.”
The third scenario for Russia, is deploying nukes as weapons of terror. It’s the scariest scenario, and thankfully, the least likely. However, Russia targets civilians with conventional weapons routinely, so it’s not impossible to rule out Putin giving the order to launch a strategic nuclear weapon at civilian targets like a city.
Such a strike could be hundreds of times more powerful than a tactical nuclear weapon and would be designed to destroy Ukrainian resolve. But even a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine may not elicit a nuclear response from NATO.
“We have conventional capabilities,” White explained, “that could target very specific capabilities inside of Russia, inside of Belarus, wherever the missile came from, as a way of saying, you know, ‘you can’t do that, but we’re not going to escalate using a nuclear weapon right now,’ right? So, that keeps the onus on the Russians. Now, they’re going to have to do it twice, right? Which means that whatever hole they’ve been digging is now deeper.”
When thinking of nuclear escalation as a ladder, Russia’s use of strategic nuclear weapons outside of its borders is the top rung. It’s the situation everyone wants to avoid, and the one Putin and his cronies like to threaten the most. It’s also absolutely the least likely scenario, mainly because it would be the end of Russia.
With conventional weapons alone, the U.S. and NATO could strike key Russian targets anywhere on the globe within one hour. Russian military bases, installations and leadership centers would be fair game along with whatever air, land, or sea assets Russia has deployed outside of its borders.
Also, China, the only Russian ally with any real military might, would no doubt cut ties leaving Vladimir Putin alone. The leader of a failed state.
However unlikely that scenario is, unfortunately, it’s still not impossible. Also, there’s no guarantee someone more menacing than Putin doesn’t rise to power.
When it comes to nuclear weapons, you want to do everything you can to try to mitigate that risk,” White said. “It’s a fine balance, because sometimes your notion of trying to mitigate risk to you looks completely rational, and to them, it looks incredibly provocative, right?”
White said figuring out the right response to nuclear weapons is the trickiest puzzle there is, because you’re communicating with force. You want your message to be received and followed, but you can’t control your adversary’s response.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Biden ‘serious’ about Gershkovich prisoner swap, path unclear
“Oh, I’m serious about a prisoner exchange,” President Biden said. “I’m serious about doing all we can to free Americans who are being illegally held in Russia or anywhere else for that matter. And that process is underway.”
Biden’s comments came more than a week after the Kremlin signaled it was open to more talks about a potential prisoner swap. Where those talks go, however, was still unclear heading into this week.
“I do not want to give false hope. What the Kremlin said earlier this week is correct: There have been discussions,” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said Friday, July 7. “But those discussions have not produced a clear pathway to a resolution, and so I cannot stand here today and tell you that we have a clear answer to how we are going to get Evan home. All I can do is tell you that we have a clear commitment and conviction that we will do everything possible to bring him home.”
The same day Biden commented on a Gershkovich prisoner swap, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke with one of Russia’s top newspapers about the Wagner Group. When asked if he would keep the group as a fighting unit, President Putin said that, in a legal sense, the group doesn’t even exist.
“Wagner does not exist,” Putin said. “There is no law on private military organizations. It just doesn’t exist.”
According to the newspaper interview, Putin said he offered Wagner mercenaries the option of continuing to serve as a single unit under their same commander, Yevgeny Prigozhin, during talks with the group five days after their brief revolt ended on June 24. However, Putin also suggested Prigozhin may be moved aside in favor of a different commander.
“We’re not even sure where he is and what relationship he has. If I were he, I’d be careful what I ate. I’d be keeping my eye on my menu,” Biden said when asked about Prigozhin Thursday. “But all kidding aside, who knows? I don’t know. I don’t think any of us know for sure what the future of Prigozhin is in Russia. And so, I don’t know how to answer that question beyond that.”
Israel may plan preemptive strike on Iran to deter nuclear program, US leak suggests
Israel may be considering a preemptive strike on Iran as a means to deter its nuclear program, according to a portion of a top-secret intelligence report leaked on the platform Discord earlier this year. The document, classified as top secret, was coded as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and first reported by the Israeli outlet Ynet in April.
The leaked document dated Feb. 23 reveals “Israel conducted a large-scale exercise, probably to simulate a strike on Iran’s nuclear program and possibly to demonstrate Jerusalem’s resolve to act against Tehran.”
This document cites a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that found traces of near weapons-grade uranium at one of Iran’s facilities. The amount detected approaches a “declared redline” for Israel, per the document.
“Netanyahu probably calculates Israel will need to strike Iran to deter its nuclear program and faces a declining military capability to set back Iran’s enrichment program,” the document speculates.
Notably, Iran has denied enriching uranium to the claimed 84% level mentioned by the IAEA. However, experts highlight that the critical threshold for creating an atomic bomb is 90%.
If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, it would join the list of nine other countries known to possess nuclear weapons.
The leaked CIA report contains a factual inaccuracy where it mistakenly refers to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “president.” The document may include other errors.
The intelligence notes the CIA’s uncertainty regarding Israel’s intentions and near-term plans to attack Iran:
“CIA does not know Israel’s near-term plans and intentions. Israel may wait to see U.S. and international reaction to the IAEA’s findings regarding Iran’s nuclear program and whether Iran’s supreme leader will authorize uranium enrichment to weapons-grade before deciding whether to take action,” the document reads.
The Intercept reports that President Biden has not opposed a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran — and his national security adviser recently hinted at blessing it.
“We have made clear to Iran that it can never be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon,” Jake Sullivan said in a speech earlier in May, reiterating the administration’s often-repeated line.
In the meantime, Iran is increasing its arsenal as it prepares to receive two dozen SU-35 heavy multi-role fighter jets from Russia.
The two countries have seen their ties deepen in recent months.
Iran has also reportedly supplied Moscow with hundreds of lethal drones amidst Russia’s ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Secret Service investigating intrusion at home of top Biden aide
The Secret Service says it is investigating an intrusion that occurred at the residence of National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan in late April. Sullivan, a close aide of President Biden, was unharmed during the incident.
According to sources who spoke to The Washington Post, the intrusion occurred around 3 a.m. a few weeks ago after an unknown man walked into Sullivan’s home in Washington, D.C.
Sullivan confronted the intruder, who appeared to be intoxicated, sources said. No signs of forced entry were discovered and Sullivan instructed the man to leave, they added.
The Secret Service said it considered the security breach a matter of significant concern.
“While the protectee was unharmed, we are taking this matter seriously and have opened a comprehensive mission assurance investigation to review all facets of what occurred,” Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said in the statement, in response to an inquiry from The Washington Post.
“Any deviation from our protective protocols is unacceptable and if discovered, personnel will be held accountable,” the statement added.
The motives behind the recent intrusion at Sullivan’s home were not immediately clear, however the incident occurs amidst growing concerns over plots to attack U.S. officials and politicians.
Last October, Paul Pelosi was reportedly assaulted after a man entered his San Francisco residence while looking for his wife, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The home was reportedly under Capitol Police surveillance.
Months before that, authorities arrested an armed man near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The man had reportedly set out to kill the justice.
Although the justices were already provided with round-the-clock protection by the U.S. Marshals Service, Congress subsequently extended security measures to include the families of the justices.
The White House declined to comment on the specific incident at Sullivan’s residence.
The Secret Service says it has deployed additional security precautions for Sullivan and around his home, pending the completion of the investigation.
CIA director: Chinese army told to prepare for Taiwan invasion by 2027
CIA Director Bill Burns said Chinese President Xi Jinping has instructed his country’s army to be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027 at the latest. But that doesn’t mean military conflict is inevitable.
“We do know, as has been made public, that President Xi has instructed the PLA, the Chinese military leadership, to be ready by 2027 to invade Taiwan. But that doesn’t mean that he’s decided to invade in 2027 or any other year as well,” Burns told “Face the Nation.” “We need to take very seriously Xi’s ambitions with regard to ultimately controlling Taiwan.”
Burns said Xi has yet to make a final decision because he has doubts about the People’s Liberation Army’s ability to succeed. Those doubts are partially fueled by Russia’s military struggles in Ukraine.
This revelation comes as Burns, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan go public with intelligence that China is considering providing Russia with military equipment.
“Well, we’re confident that the Chinese leadership is considering the provision of lethal equipment. We also don’t see that a final decision has been made yet, and we don’t see evidence of actual shipments of lethal equipment,” Burns said. “And that’s why, I think, Secretary Blinken and the president have thought it important to make very clear what the consequences of that would be as well.”
The officials hope going public with this information will deter China.
“But, if it goes down that road, it will come at real costs to China. And I think China’s leaders are weighing that as they make their decisions,” Sullivan said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
President Biden said he plans to impose sanctions should China militarily assist Russia, but he won’t provide details ahead of time. The president also said he spoke to Xi and reminded him that assisting Russia could impact Western investment in China.
Politicians indicate US aid for Ukraine could slow in 2023
As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, some U.S. lawmakers have warned that aid to Ukraine will not slow down. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Punchbowl News in October that further aid to Ukraine would become more difficult to pass if Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. The GOP did, in fact, win the majority in the House.
The public seems to be growing skeptical, as well. An October Wall Street Journal poll showed 48% of Republicansthink the U.S. is doing too much to help Ukraine – up from 6% in March.
So what are the concerns about U.S. aid for Ukraine?
The economy
War is costly, and aid is funded by budget deficits, which contribute to inflation. McCarthy mentioned it in his interview with Punchbowl News, when he said “I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine.”
McCarthy’s concern is an echo of Sen. Rand Paul’s words, spoken as he held up one of the aid packages earlier this year.
“My oath of office is to the U.S. Constitution – not to any foreign nation,” Paul said. “And no matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the United States of America. We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy.”
Though, the war would be inflationary for the U.S. no matter how much money we spend in aid. The sanctions, energy crisis and food shortage have all affected the economy.
2. The money could be spent elsewhere
Some lawmakers have said the money for Ukraine could be used to address domestic issues.
Military defense experts said the spending is worth it to prevent Russia from gaining more momentum as a national security threat.
“We believe that it is our strategic objective to ensure that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not a strategic success for Putin – that it is a strategic failure for Putin,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said at the Aspen Security Forum. “And that means both that he be denied his objectives in Ukraine and that Russia pay a longer term price in terms of the elements of its national power so that the lesson that goes forth to would-be aggressors elsewhere is that if you try things like this, it comes at a cost that is not worth bearing.”
Ukraine’s score and ranking have both improved in the last decade and the country has agencies to monitor such activity, including the National Agency on Corruption Prevention and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
4. It can be challenging to track what the U.S. sends to Ukraine
“I’ve heard from constituents who have been down range, who said that they see some of the most exquisite American military equipment being scattered about Ukraine without true accountability and without a measure of whether or not it’s going into the fight in a righteous way.”
As we’re spending at a rate of $6.8 billion a month, various leaders have called for different solutions, from reducing that funding to adding oversight.
“I’ve heard from constituents who have been down range, who said that they see some of the most exquisite American military equipment being scattered about Ukraine without true accountability and without a measure of whether or not it’s going into the fight in a righteous way,” Rep. Matt Gaetz said in November.
Reports: US in private talks with Russia, Ukraine over invasion
According to reports from The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, Biden administration officials have held private talks with both sides of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. According to people familiar with the Ukraine talks, the Biden administration officials are encouraging Ukraine’s leaders to signal an openness to negotiate with Russia and drop their public refusal to engage in peace talks unless President Vladimir Putin is removed from power.
The encouragement from U.S. officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, according to the people who spoke to the Post. They called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.
“Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” one of the U.S. officials said. A spokesman for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not respond to a request for comment.
Two days after the Post report was published, Russia declined to comment on a Journal report saying National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan held private talks about Ukraine with top aides to President Putin. According to U.S. and allied officials, the talks were an effort to reduce the risk of a broader conflict over Ukraine and warn Moscow against using nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction.
“We have nothing to say about this publication,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Monday. He also declined on the Post report, responding “we don’t know if that’s the case or not.”