Category: Nation

Military experts outline the potential U.S. operation to seize Iran’s Kharg Island, emphasizing the challenges of holding it against retaliatory attacks while preserving its vital oil infrastructure.

Military experts have detailed how U.S. Marines could potentially seize Iran’s Kharg Island within hours, but they caution that maintaining control against missile and drone attacks would be significantly more challenging.

In a hypothetical scenario, hundreds of U.S. Marines would storm ashore as helicopters thunder overhead, while Navy warships and fighter jets establish overwhelming air and sea superiority. Commanders would issue a final warning to Iranian forces: surrender or face being overrun. This is how military analysts envision the initial hours of a U.S. operation to capture Kharg Island, a strategically vital location that handles approximately 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports and has become a focal point of Washington’s economic pressure on Tehran.

The discussion surrounding a potential takeover of Kharg Island gained renewed attention after President Donald Trump declined to dismiss the possibility. In an exclusive interview with Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump stated, “I can’t say that to you because if I did, it would be foolish.” He further explained that previous U.S. strikes intentionally avoided targeting the island’s oil facilities due to their significance to the global economy.

Vice Adm. (Ret.) Robert Harward, former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, emphasized the importance of minimizing risk in any military operation. He noted that a Marine Expeditionary Unit could conduct an amphibious assault while U.S. naval and air forces establish complete control over the area, allowing Iranian defenders the opportunity to surrender before major combat ensues. The primary objective, he explained, would not only be to capture the island but also to preserve the oil infrastructure for a potential post-Islamic Republic government.

“The real objective at the end of the day is to minimize risk,” Harward stated. “Not only to your own forces, but to the people you’re coming in contact with,” while also limiting damage to facilities that could eventually be transferred to a government focused on supporting its citizens rather than promoting the Islamic Revolution.

Trump’s comments echoed Harward’s assessment that preserving Kharg’s oil facilities would likely be a key military objective. He mentioned that he had instructed U.S. forces during previous strikes to “hit everything but the oil,” explaining that damaging the export terminal could have serious repercussions for the global economy.

However, military experts caution that capturing Kharg Island may be the simplest part of the mission. Located just 16 miles off Iran’s Gulf coast, the eight-square-mile island is well within range of Iranian missiles, drones, and shore-based anti-ship weapons. While analysts believe U.S. forces could likely seize the island within hours, holding it against sustained retaliation from the mainland could require a much larger and prolonged military commitment, heightening the risk of direct conflict with Iran.

Kharg’s strategic importance dates back to before Iran’s modern oil industry. British forces briefly occupied the island during confrontations with Persia in the 19th century, using its location to exert pressure on Tehran. Nearly a century later, Iran designated Kharg as a deep-water oil terminal due to its sheltered waters, which could accommodate large tankers. Construction began in the late 1950s, and the terminal began operations in 1960, transforming the island into the principal outlet for Iranian crude oil.

“Everybody talks about seizing Kharg,” said Nicholas Carl, assistant director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. “Iran has spent decades investing in denial capabilities designed specifically to keep U.S. forces away from its shores.” These capabilities include anti-ship cruise missiles, drones, naval mines, and numerous fast attack craft intended to overwhelm superior naval forces.

Military planners have long regarded Iran’s anti-access strategy as one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East. Rather than matching the U.S. Navy ship for ship, Tehran has heavily invested in asymmetric weapons designed to make any amphibious assault costly.

Harward acknowledged that once American forces were on Kharg, the primary danger would shift from conventional naval combat to missile and drone attacks launched from the nearby mainland. “Iran doesn’t really have air power,” he explained. “The concern is whether they launch missiles and drones at the island with U.S. forces on the ground. That’s the biggest risk.” He noted that the operation’s viability would ultimately depend on intelligence regarding the number and disposition of Iranian forces, as well as any potential booby traps or improvised explosive devices.

Despite these risks, Harward argued that any Iranian retaliation would come at a significant cost for Tehran. “If they start striking Kharg itself, they become accountable for damaging their own economic lifeline,” he said. This situation illustrates the distinction between tactical success and strategic success. While seizing an eight-square-mile island presents one military challenge, defending it against sustained attacks from Iranian territory poses another, more complex problem.

Harward suggested that Washington still has several options short of launching an amphibious assault. With the U.S.-led blockade already constraining Iran’s oil exports, he argued that additional economic pressure could target overland transportation routes, border crossings, and air traffic, rather than committing ground troops. “There is still a lot you could do to enhance the economic challenges to Iran,” he said. “Synchronizing military, economic, and political pressure is really the strategy.”

Some strategists have also questioned whether Kharg is the most valuable military objective. Mark Fox, a retired Vice Admiral and former commander of the 5th Fleet, previously stated that Kharg is fundamentally an oil terminal rather than a military stronghold. He suggested that smaller islands, such as Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa—disputed territories near the Strait of Hormuz—could represent more manageable military objectives while creating significant strategic dilemmas for Tehran due to their location along a crucial shipping lane.

For Harward, the larger question extends beyond any single island. “I think the only real end state to ensure long-term stability and security in the region is a government of Iran that renounces the Islamic Revolution and focuses on the Iranian people,” he said. Achieving this would require addressing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, halting support for proxy groups, ensuring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and ending the regime’s domestic repression.

Whether Washington ever decides to seize Kharg Island, military planners agree on one point: while capturing Iran’s economic lifeline may be achievable in a matter of hours, successfully holding it—and managing the regional escalation that could follow—would be a far longer and more complex endeavor, according to Fox News.

The ongoing debate over birthright citizenship continues as former President Donald Trump seeks to challenge a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the practice, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

The battle over birthright citizenship remains unresolved for former President Donald Trump, despite a June 30 Supreme Court ruling that rejected his executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

In a recent statement on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump announced, “I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY.” He claimed that networks facilitating “birth tourism,” which enable non-U.S. citizens to travel to the country solely to give birth, have become a significant industry.

Trump described the Supreme Court’s decision as a “miscarriage of justice,” warning that it could “destroy America” if not overturned. His administration has consistently expressed strong opposition to birthright citizenship, a practice that has granted automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil for over a century.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that sought to restrict birthright citizenship, challenging a long-standing legal precedent established by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In various interviews, Trump has claimed, “You know, we’re the only country that has it,” a statement that is not accurate.

To better understand the context of this issue, it is essential to examine the history and legal framework surrounding birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship was established in 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War to ensure that former slaves would be granted citizenship. The landmark Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark in the late 1800s further expanded this definition to include children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents. Subsequent rulings have reinforced the principle that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, with very few exceptions primarily concerning children born to foreign diplomats.

Until the Trump administration, birthright citizenship was largely accepted as a fundamental aspect of U.S. law, with few voices questioning its legitimacy. Historically, even many Republicans have expressed support for immigration, recognizing the contributions of newcomers to the nation.

Former President Ronald Reagan, during a 1984 naturalization ceremony in Detroit, praised immigrants, stating, “Recent immigrants have crawled over walls and under barbed wire and through mine fields to reach the U.S., and all of them have added to the sum total of what your new country is.”

Trump has framed birthright citizenship as a “magnet for illegal immigration,” linking it to rising concerns over border security and illegal crossings. His administration has pointed to illegal “birth tourism” networks as evidence of the need for reform, claiming that these operations facilitate the entry of non-U.S. citizens into the country for the sole purpose of giving birth and securing U.S. citizenship for their children.

While birth tourism is a real phenomenon, it is far less prevalent than Trump suggests. Some companies promote these services, charging significant fees to assist foreign nationals in giving birth in the U.S. However, the practice of giving birth on U.S. soil while holding a temporary visa is not illegal. The act of applying for a visa solely to obtain U.S. citizenship for a child, however, is considered fraudulent, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

In legal arguments against birthright citizenship, government lawyers have focused on a specific phrase in the 14th Amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They contend that this language allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to children born to women who are in the country illegally. However, during oral arguments in April, even some conservative justices on the Supreme Court expressed skepticism regarding this interpretation.

Trump’s assertion that the United States is unique in its provision of birthright citizenship is misleading. While it is true that many countries do not offer unrestricted birthright citizenship, several nations, particularly in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico, do grant citizenship to anyone born on their soil. Furthermore, numerous countries, including Germany and Australia, employ a mixed approach that considers various factors such as parentage, place of birth, residency, and ethnicity in determining citizenship.

The future of birthright citizenship in the United States remains uncertain as legal challenges continue to unfold. The implications of these debates extend beyond legal interpretations, touching on broader discussions about immigration, national identity, and the values that define American society.

As the conversation evolves, it is crucial to remain informed about the facts surrounding birthright citizenship and the historical context that underpins this contentious issue, according to The Associated Press.

President Trump has warned Iran of potential military action in response to alleged assassination plot allegations, escalating tensions between the two nations.

President Trump has issued a stark warning to Iran, stating that the U.S. military is prepared to respond with overwhelming force if Tehran acts on an alleged assassination plot against him. This declaration comes amid rising tensions between the two nations.

In a series of provocative statements made late Friday, Trump threatened to “decimate and destroy” Iran if the Islamic Republic attempts to carry out a reported assassination plot against him. His comments followed a report from The Wall Street Journal, which indicated that Israeli intelligence had shared information with U.S. officials suggesting that Iranian leaders were considering such an action.

Trump conveyed his message via the social media platform Truth Social, asserting, “1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!” He emphasized that military orders had been issued and that U.S. forces are ready for a prolonged engagement if necessary, stating, “Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one-year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran – PRAISE BE TO ALLAH!”

This latest warning from Trump represents a significant escalation in U.S.-Iran relations, which have been marked by hostility and conflict for decades. Relations have deteriorated dramatically since 1979, when the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was seized, and have been punctuated by various military confrontations, economic sanctions, and diplomatic crises. The recent surge in tensions follows a series of retaliatory strikes and the revocation of Iran’s oil sanctions waiver after attacks on vessels in the critical Strait of Hormuz.

Just prior to Trump’s remarks, he attended a NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, where he labeled Iran as his “No. 1 target” following an exchange of strikes that heightened security concerns. This characterization underscores the ongoing animosity that has characterized U.S. foreign policy under Trump’s administration, which has often taken a hardline stance against Tehran.

In Iran, the atmosphere has also become increasingly charged. Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, the newly appointed Supreme Leader and son of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed to avenge his father’s death, which occurred during a U.S. military engagement earlier this year. In a Telegram post reviewed by Reuters, he stated that avenging his father’s death was a “demand of the nation” and that it “must certainly” occur. This sentiment was echoed at the funeral procession for the late Supreme Leader, where crowds held banners proclaiming, “WE WILL KILL TRUMP.” Such rhetoric highlights the deep-seated emotions and nationalistic fervor that can drive both public sentiment and government policy in Iran.

In light of these threats, Trump reiterated in an interview with The New York Post that he has taken measures to ensure military readiness should Iran act against him. He disclosed that he had “left instructions” for a powerful military response if anything were to happen to him, stating, “I’ve been on their list for a long time. That’s what we’re dealing with.” This admission reflects his awareness of the risks involved in U.S.-Iran relations and the persistent threats he perceives from Iranian leadership.

Despite the heightened rhetoric, Trump downplayed the significance of the intelligence shared by Israeli officials, maintaining that there was no new plot from Iran against him. He remarked, “No, no. Israel came up with nothing. No, no. I’ve been No. 1 [on Iran’s kill list] for a long time, and it’s the way life is, you know.” This statement illustrates a broader context of enduring animosity between the U.S. and Iran, particularly during his administration, and reflects Trump’s perception of his own vulnerabilities.

The current state of affairs raises critical questions regarding U.S. foreign policy and military engagement in the Middle East. The potential for military conflict poses concerns not only within the United States but also among its allies and partners globally. Recent actions, including the revocation of Iran’s oil sanctions waiver and the declaration of a ceasefire as “over,” signal a significant shift in diplomatic engagements and could lead to further military confrontations.

As tensions continue to rise, the international community is closely monitoring developments to gauge the next moves by both the U.S. and Iran. The implications of any military action could have far-reaching consequences, affecting regional stability as well as global oil markets and international relations. A military escalation could draw in other nations and complicate existing alliances, further destabilizing the region.

In this charged environment, Iran’s response remains uncertain, with further retaliatory actions possible. The potential for escalation is a pressing concern for stakeholders worldwide, as both nations navigate this perilous situation. The actions taken in the coming days and weeks will be critical in shaping not only the future of U.S.-Iran relations but also the broader geopolitical landscape in the Middle East, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Texas State Rep. Brian Harrison has urged Governor Greg Abbott to halt the issuance of birth certificates to children born to non-citizens, citing recent legal developments on birthright citizenship.

Texas State Representative Brian Harrison is calling on Governor Greg Abbott to convene a special legislative session aimed at addressing birthright citizenship. He is advocating for the state to stop issuing birth certificates to children born in Texas to non-citizens.

This appeal follows recent legal developments related to former President Donald Trump’s executive order, which sought to eliminate automatic birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and certain temporary visa holders. Although the U.S. Supreme Court recently limited the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not make a ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s order, leaving the broader legal debate unresolved.

In a recent interview, Harrison criticized both the federal judiciary and Texas leadership, asserting that the state should adopt a more proactive stance. “I’m sick and tired of the Texas government and the leadership down here, the weak leadership taking it on the chin when destructive edicts come rolling down from Washington, D.C.,” he stated.

Harrison contended that Texas has the constitutional authority to take independent action rather than waiting for the outcome of federal litigation. He emphasized that state-issued birth certificates are not federally mandated documents but are issued under state authority using taxpayer funds. “There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the State of Texas to facilitate illegal immigration by issuing birth certificates to the children of illegal aliens and of non-citizens,” he said.

The Republican lawmaker urged the executive branch to take immediate action without waiting for legislative approval. “I officially called for the executive branch, who has the power to do this unilaterally, to stop giving birth certificates to illegal aliens. Stop giving birth certificates to non-citizens,” he asserted.

Harrison also expressed frustration over what he perceives as a lack of resolve among Texas leaders. He argued that “Texas deserves more than just firmly worded letters and tweets of disappointment.” He added that if the issue ultimately reaches the Supreme Court, Texas should be prepared to defend its position vigorously.

“We need action, and the State of Texas has a lot of tools available to us under the Constitution,” Harrison remarked. “We need to start fighting as hard for the future of our state and country as the left is. Texas has a lot of tools available to us. We just need the courage to do it.”

Harrison’s proposal is likely to face immediate legal challenges. Currently, birth certificates are issued by states to document births regardless of the immigration status of the parents. Legal scholars have long maintained that citizenship is determined under the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law, while birth certificates serve as vital records rather than citizenship documents.

Harrison’s comments come amid ongoing national debates surrounding immigration and birthright citizenship. Trump’s executive order, signed shortly after he returned to office, seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States. Multiple lawsuits challenging this order are still pending in federal courts.

Support for Harrison’s proposal has begun to gain traction among other Texas Republicans. State Representative David Lowe has also publicly called on the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to cease issuing birth certificates to non-citizens, adding momentum to the push for state-level action.

As of now, it remains uncertain whether Governor Abbott will call a special legislative session on this issue or if Texas officials will pursue administrative changes before federal courts resolve the ongoing constitutional challenges, according to The American Bazaar.

Ukraine has intensified its drone offensive against Russian maritime and energy targets, striking 21 vessels and the Omsk refinery, while Moscow responds by banning diesel exports to manage fuel shortages.

Ukraine has launched one of its most extensive drone offensives against Russia’s maritime and energy infrastructure in recent days, claiming strikes on 21 vessels and intensifying attacks on major refineries deep within Russian territory. This wave of assaults highlights Ukraine’s growing long-range capabilities and aims to disrupt Moscow’s fuel supplies.

On Wednesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with former U.S. President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in Ankara. During their discussions, Trump announced that the United States would permit Ukraine to manufacture Patriot air-defense interceptors, and the two leaders explored the possibility of a new drone agreement.

Zelenskyy emphasized that air defense remains a top priority for Ukraine, describing the potential drone deal as “a very good beginning.” He expressed hope for further discussions with Trump regarding the details of the agreement. This meeting allowed Zelenskyy to present evidence of Ukraine’s domestic drone capabilities, which can threaten Russian assets far beyond the conventional battlefield.

Trump praised Zelenskyy as “very effective” and credited Ukrainian forces for successfully utilizing American military equipment against Russia’s larger military. “He’s had the best equipment because he had our equipment,” Trump stated. “But somebody has to use that equipment. And you have a lot of brave people that are using that equipment.”

Ukraine’s recent offensive has forced Russia to defend its refineries, airfields, shipping routes, and other critical infrastructure well beyond the front lines. While Kyiv has not achieved significant breakthroughs in its ground campaign, the long-range strikes have begun to disrupt fuel production and maritime logistics, imposing costs on regions of Russia that were previously insulated from the conflict.

On Tuesday, Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces reported that nine Russian-linked vessels were struck in the Sea of Azov, bringing the total number of targeted vessels over a 72-hour period to 21. Commander Robert “Magyar” Brovdi indicated that the targets included 19 oil tankers, a cargo ship, and a ferry operating near Russian-occupied Crimea, describing the campaign against the fleet as reaching an “industrial scale.”

Both Ukrainian and Russian officials confirmed that the overnight offensive targeted tankers, refineries, pipeline facilities, and a military airfield across several Russian regions. Ukraine stated that many of the vessels were part of Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, used to transport fuel to Crimea, which Russia seized and illegally annexed in 2014.

The maritime strikes were accompanied by attacks on the Saratov refinery and energy facilities in the Russian regions of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. Russian authorities reported one fatality in Saratov due to the attacks. Additionally, Ukraine claimed to have struck the Borisoglebsk military airfield in Russia’s Voronezh region, which has been utilized by Russian combat aircraft involved in operations against Ukraine.

This latest wave of drone strikes follows a significant Ukrainian attack on the Omsk refinery in Siberia, approximately 1,700 miles from Ukrainian-controlled territory. The Omsk facility is Russia’s largest oil refinery, processing about 460,000 barrels of crude per day last year, according to Reuters. Following the attack, industry sources reported that the Omsk facility had halted oil processing.

The disruption at the Omsk refinery comes amid reports of gasoline and diesel shortages in various parts of Russia, attributed in part to repeated Ukrainian attacks on refineries and fuel depots. Long lines have formed at filling stations in several cities, and some regions have implemented purchasing restrictions.

In response to the fuel shortages, Russia announced on Wednesday that it would temporarily ban diesel exports through July 31 to safeguard domestic supplies. This shortage has become one of the most visible impacts of the ongoing conflict on ordinary Russians.

Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of the Kremlin-funded RT network, acknowledged the difficulties faced by the Russian population during an appearance on state television. She urged citizens not to respond by challenging the government. “There is no petrol,” Simonyan stated in a translated clip circulated by regional media, recalling the food rationing experienced after the collapse of the Soviet Union. “We endured it. And we will endure it now.”

Simonyan cautioned that Russia’s adversaries would like to see the population react as it did during the 1917 revolution and “run off to overthrow” the czar. “Yes, it is hard, yes, very hard,” she said, urging Russians to remain calm amidst the challenges.

The pressure on Russia’s energy infrastructure coincided with Zelenskyy’s meeting with Trump at the Beştepe Presidential Compound. Meanwhile, Russia continued its bombardment of Ukraine, striking Kyiv and other cities with missiles and drones. Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko reported that storage facilities were ablaze in the capital’s Desnyanskyi district, with additional fires reported in the Sviatoshynskyi district.

As the conflict escalates, the implications of Ukraine’s drone offensive and Russia’s responses will continue to shape the dynamics of the war and its impact on both nations.

According to Reuters, the ongoing situation reflects the evolving nature of the conflict and the increasing stakes for both Ukraine and Russia.

Tens of thousands of far-left protesters clashed with police in Erfurt, Germany, during a demonstration against the conservative Alternative for Germany (AfD) party’s conference.

On Saturday, the city of Erfurt was the scene of significant unrest as tens of thousands of far-left protesters took to the streets to voice their opposition to the conservative Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Reports indicate that over 30,000 demonstrators participated in the protests, which coincided with the AfD’s party conference and leadership elections.

Videos from the event captured intense confrontations between protesters and law enforcement, with police employing batons and anti-riot measures to manage the crowd. Demonstrators were seen carrying signs with slogans such as “Stop AfD Nazis” and “For Diversity, Against Nazis,” highlighting their opposition to the party’s policies.

Despite the clashes, police characterized the demonstrations as “mostly peaceful.” They reported approximately 100 law violations, primarily related to graffiti, and emphasized that the situation was under control. However, the protests did disrupt the AfD’s internal proceedings, delaying the party’s vote on leadership.

During the conference, the AfD re-elected Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla as co-leaders. Chrupalla expressed frustration over the protests, criticizing the methods used by demonstrators to express their dissent. “There are no peaceful seated blockades. There are no democratic roadblocks,” he stated, labeling the protesters as “troublemakers” and asserting that they were undermining democracy.

Chrupalla further claimed that the protesters believed they held a monopoly on democratic expression. “This democracy is just as much our democracy as it is yours,” he asserted, addressing the demonstrators directly.

A spokesperson for the local antifascist group widersetzen, which organized the protests, articulated the group’s intention to obstruct the AfD’s party convention. Lena Raupach, the spokesperson, condemned the AfD’s policies, describing them as fascist and accusing the party of failing to address real societal issues. “It pursues policies that benefit the rich, not ordinary citizens,” she said, advocating for a society that offers equal opportunities and security for all.

The AfD, which has faced accusations of extremism from various political factions, continues to assert that it is being unfairly targeted by mainstream parties. The party has seen a notable rise in popularity, capturing over 20% of the national vote in the 2025 federal elections and positioning itself to potentially gain even more support in future elections. Some polls currently rank the AfD as the most popular party in Germany.

Chrupalla expressed confidence in the party’s future, stating, “We will win. Maybe we’ll be able to govern alone soon. That would send the right message to the enemies of democracy out there who wanted to prevent our party convention from taking place.” The party’s alignment with the conservative movement associated with former U.S. President Donald Trump was evident at the conference, where attendees displayed merchandise reminiscent of Trump’s campaign, including hats emblazoned with “Make Germany Great Again.”

As tensions between the AfD and its opponents continue to escalate, the political landscape in Germany remains charged, with both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. The protests in Erfurt reflect a broader struggle over the direction of German politics and the influence of far-right ideologies.

According to the Associated Press, the situation in Erfurt underscores the growing polarization within German society as the AfD’s popularity rises amid ongoing debates over immigration and national identity.