We Are All Now First Responders to Extreme Heat

This week, blistering temperatures could put more than 220 million Americans at risk. Extreme heat is the deadliest type of weather disaster in the United States—and one of the most underestimated.  In my decades of climate resilience work in towns and neighborhoods, I’ve seen firsthand the pain, loss, and economic costs of extreme heat. Heat strains power grids, damages infrastructure, and worsens air pollution. It puts outdoor and commuting workers at risk, flares chronic health conditions, profoundly endangers mother and baby during pregnancy, and disproportionately harms children, older adults, and low-income families.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Yet as communities from the Eastern Seaboard to the Midwest are engulfed in record-breaking temperatures, the U.S. is now even more dangerously unprepared. The safety net we count on in moments of climate crisis isn’t just fraying—it’s unraveling. As a result, you are (or will soon be) forced to become your own first responder.

In its drive to slash the size and scope of the federal government, the Trump administration has weakened the very agencies and systems we rely on to prepare for and respond to disasters–including extreme heat. Cuts to NOAA’s forecasting programs weaken our ability to anticipate and plan for dangerously high temperatures while reduced support for programs like the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and slashed funding for public health efforts—like the CDC’s Climate and Health Program—leave states and cities without tools to protect residents before and during heat waves.

Read More: Losing NOAA’s Natural Disaster Data Will Make Storms More Devastating for the Poor

While these cuts may seem abstract or bureaucratic, their impact is personal. If you’ve ever checked the weather on your phone, you’ve depended on NOAA. These are the scientists who issue early warnings that save lives. When funding is slashed, those alerts may come too late—or not at all.

Even before summer officially began, Americans were grappling with the impacts—from International Falls, Minnesota, known as the “icebox of the nation,” where temperatures soared into the 90s in early May, to the Rio Grande Valley, which endured a mid-May heatwave that made it hotter than Death Valley. Alaska—yes, Alaska—issued its first ever heat warning this week.

Read More: The Most Efficient Way to Run Your AC During a Heat Wave

While the administration claims it is shifting responsibility to the states, this blatantly ignores the reality that states lack the funding and infrastructure to manage on their own. Federal grants have been essential to states’ preparedness. Even cities widely regarded as leaders in disaster preparedness are strained. Miami-Dade County was forced to eliminate both its Chief Resilience Officer and Chief Heat Officer roles due to budget constraints, while Los Angeles’ proposed budget would eliminate its entire climate resilience office.

I work with under-served communities around the world, from the United States to India, and Mexico to Greece. I’ve sat in community centers where mothers have shared strategies on how to stay safe working outdoors while still earning enough to feed their families. I’ve walked through Sierra Leone outdoor markets and seen the benefit of simple shade structures to prevent heat stroke. These efforts are survival.

When governments can’t (or won’t) help us, we—our communities—become the first line of defense. As a first responder, here’s what you can do:

Know What’s Coming

It’s important to understand your local climate threats. Arm yourself with information on the early signs of heat illness: dizziness, headache, nausea, rapid heartbeat, and confusion. Heatstroke is a medical emergency that requires immediate action. Awareness saves lives and sparks action.

Plan Like It’s Personal

Heat doesn’t just affect “other people”—healthy, young individuals are now showing up in emergency rooms. Having a plan can save lives. That means staying hydrated, resting in shade or air-conditioned spaces, and scheduling strenuous outdoor activities early in the day. If you don’t have air conditioning, know where the nearest cooling center is and how to keep your home cooler—by closing blinds during the day and using fans or cross-ventilation at night, when staying cool is essential for the body to rest and recover.

Build a Check-In Culture

Loneliness can be lethal during a heatwave. Programs like Philadelphia’s Heat Response Program and Los Angeles’ senior outreach initiative show how check-ins save lives. But you don’t need a government job to do this. Create a phone tree or a group chat. Encourage people to “adopt a neighbor” during heat alerts. One call can make all the difference.

Turn Public Spaces into Lifelines

When government systems falter, schools, libraries, religious institutions, and shaded parks can become heat-safe hubs. I’ve helped cities pilot community cooling spaces that serve as a refuge for people without access to air conditioning and seen how, when designed thoughtfully, cooling centers are not just places to retreat—they are places to reconnect, reorganize, and rebuild.

While your new job as a first responder is critical, it’s not yours to keep — that’s the government’s. Until then, however, and while the safety net is burning, it’s on us to help put out the flames.

source https://time.com/7297209/extreme-heat-first-responder-community-essay/

Remembering FedEx’s Fred Smith, a CEO of CEOs

The last time I saw Fred Smith was just a few weeks ago, at a meeting in Nashville. We were taking a quick break from an intense dialogue with leaders across the political spectrum. Fred had been calling for dialogue, for common ground, for a way forward. The room was loud, full of opinions. As we got up, Fred took me aside to coach me, as he often did: “Now is the time to lead with our values,” he told me.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

That was Fred: clear in his convictions, generous in his vision, and unwavering in his belief that business could—and must—be a force for good in the world.

Fred Smith is of course a giant in the history of American business. His vision and daring revolutionized global commerce and connected the world in unprecedented ways. But to those who knew him, Fred was something even rarer: a leader whose values ran even deeper than his ambition.

I saw that moral compass in action during the first chaotic weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals were desperate for protective gear, and at Salesforce we were racing to source and deliver what we could. One breakthrough came when our team located 500,000 surgical masks in Los Angeles—but we had no way to get them quickly to hospitals in San Francisco. I called Fred. Without hesitation, he and his son Richard, a senior executive at FedEx, offered help, and within hours the masks were on trucks and on their way. That one shipment saved lives. And that moment told you everything you needed to know about Fred: decisive, humble, always leading with purpose. It should be noted that FedEx was ultimately responsible for the successful distribution of roughly half of all COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.

FedEx, under Fred’s leadership, was an innovative company as well as an ethical one, among the earliest global leaders in corporate responsibility and philanthropy. That legacy came from the top. Fred believed in delivering with excellence, acting with integrity and putting people first.

Over the years, I saw Fred often as a fellow member of the Business Council, as a guest at dinners that I hosted and elsewhere. He wasn’t the most frequent speaker in those settings, but when he had something to say, the room listened. His wisdom was grounded in experience and offered without ego. That’s what made him a leader of leaders. A CEO of CEOs.

Fred and I also shared a deep devotion to our hometowns—mine, San Francisco; his, Memphis, the city he loved and helped transform by making it a global center of commerce and through decades of quiet generosity to education, health care, the arts and community development.

I’ve been thinking, too, about how Fred didn’t just build a company. FedEx redefined what was possible, making the world feel smaller, faster, more interconnected. In its own way, it joined the ranks of the greatest technological breakthroughs – the telephone, the internet – in collapsing time and geography. That’s a legacy few can claim.

I’ll miss Fred greatly: his voice, his example, his values. But I know they live on—in his family, in the leadership of the company he built, and in all of us lucky enough to have learned from him.

source https://time.com/7297159/fed-ex-fred-smith-remembrance/

Why the Senate’s Byrd Rule Could Mean Trouble For Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

She wasn’t elected and she doesn’t cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump’s legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington.

After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President’s sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered “extraneous” to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week.

The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber’s leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump’s tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump’s megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. 

But the parliamentarian’s latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn’t allowed to substantively change policy. 

MacDonough’s rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington’s ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats.

Now, the parliamentarian’s rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece.

Here’s what to know about the rejected measures.

What is the Byrd Rule?

The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit “extraneous” provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate’s umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate’s rules. 

Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule.

What’s been cut so far?

MacDonough’s rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. 

The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits.

Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he’s looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules.

Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. “Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud.

The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts’ ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. 

Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary’s ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats “successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. 

MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays.

MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays.

Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration’s tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule’s strict thresholds for inclusion.

Are the parliamentarian’s rulings final, or could they be overturned?

The parliamentarian’s decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate’s referee.

Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian’s advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations.

But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. “We’re not going there,” the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough.

Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them.

source https://time.com/7296762/big-beautiful-bill-byrd-rule/

The Worst Thing to Say When Someone Says They’re Bisexual

More people identify as bisexual than as lesbian or gay. Yet bisexuality tends to be largely misunderstood, and people who are bi are exposed to “so many negative messages, both from heterosexual people and from lesbian and gay people,” says Tania Israel, a professor emerit of counseling psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who gave a TEDx Talk on bisexuality. “A lot of bisexual people don’t actually openly identify as bisexual, to a large extent because of the concern about exclusion and the negativity that they get.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The worst—and most common—reaction Israel hears is that bisexuality doesn’t exist. When someone says they’re bi, other people often scoff, challenging what the other person told them or retorting that they must simply be confused. “Some people will say, ‘Well, I think it’s just a phase—you’re on your way to coming out as lesbian or gay,’” Israel says. “Interestingly, people often think that bisexual women are really straight, and bisexual men are really gay. Everybody thinks people are actually attracted to men.”

Why people tend to dismiss bisexuality

Gender still plays a prominent role in how many people categorize others. When someone reveals that gender isn’t the most important characteristic in terms of who they’re attracted to, or shares that they’re attracted to more than one gender, “that really threatens this primacy of gender,” Israel says.

Read More: What to Say When a Loved One Comes Out

Derogatory, invalidating comments can take a toll on people who identify as bi. “One of the things we know is that when people encounter those kinds of messages, it can affect their mental health,” Israel says. “It certainly can affect their relationship with that person, and it can also affect whether or not they want to share that information with other people.”

A slew of offensive remarks

Another bucket of common responses when someone reveals they’re bi: comments that reduce the person to their sexuality or hypersexualize them. “They’re like, ‘OK, bisexuals exist, but only for sex,’” Israel says. People often make comments like: “Are you coming on to me?” Or, if they come out as bisexual to their partner, their partner might think that they’re trying to open the relationship. “The assumption is that bisexual people must have sex at all times, with more than one gender,” Israel says. “Another terrible thing people do is, they’ll say, ‘Oh, do you want to have a threesome?’ It’s reducing somebody to sex, and it’s very objectifying.”

Sometimes, people take another approach: They tell the person who’s bisexual to “prove it.” Israel has found that they might ask: “Have you had sex with both men and women? Are you equally attracted to both men and women?” “It’s very intrusive,” she says. “There’s a huge basket of terrible things people can say.”

What to say instead

When people are appropriately supportive to those who are bisexual, it can make a “measurable difference in terms of positive mental health,” Israel says.

There are a variety of ways to do that. For starters, when someone comes out as bi to you, thank them for telling you and trusting you. Let them know you’re there for them if they need an ear, and consider adding: “I’d love to hear more about what bisexuality means to you, because any sexual orientation can mean so many different things,” Israel suggests. It can be helpful to add: “I know there are a lot of great things about being bisexual, but I also know that bisexual people sometimes face negativity and exclusion. What’s it been like for you?”

Read More: The Surprising Health Benefits of Spicy Food

Make it a point, too, to ask your friend whether they’ve been able to find good role models and resources. People who are bi tend to be less connected with the LGBTQ+ community, Israel says, which can lead to feelings of isolation. Organizations like amBi have chapters around the U.S., and the Bisexual Resource Center works to help the bi community thrive. 

If you’re not bisexual, make it a point to learn more about how your friend identifies, too. That can help ensure you have the most supportive conversations possible. “It’s not uncommon for stereotypes to pop up in people’s minds when somebody comes out to them, so this is one of those times where if that happens, you don’t necessarily need for it to come out of your mouth,” Israel says. “It’s helpful to educate yourself—but not to rely on a bisexual person to educate you about bisexuality. Go do some of your own learning, and then you can be a more supportive person.”

Wondering what to say in a tricky social situation? Email timetotalk@time.com

source https://time.com/7295303/how-to-support-bisexual-friend/

How U.S. Strikes May Have Inadvertently Helped the Iranian Regime

Governments are not nations, especially in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but governments wage the wars that can define a nation.

Until 2:00 a.m. Iran Standard Time on Sunday, the conflict between America and Iran had remained on a low boil for a solid 45 years, flaring into actual military encounters only on the territory of others, notably Iraq. There, every sixth U.S. fatality perished by the efforts of Iran. President Donald Trump alluded to this history in announcing the U.S. air strikes on three nuclear facilities inside Iran—bringing the conflict to a regime that, even when it attacked the U.S., invariably arranged for someone else to do it.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In Iraq, the U.S. was an army of occupation, and its soldiers obliged to patrol the roads. They did so in Humvees heavily armored against the roadside bombs insurgents planted along the route. Iran, which wanted U.S. troops off its doorstep, organized its own insurgents, and gave them a new kind of roadside bomb, a shaped charge that could send a slug of copper through any armor, including an M1 Abrams tank. The soldiers who survived often lost limbs. The U.S. Army history of the Iraq War takes note of the U.S. unit intercepting crates of the copper plates fitted atop the explosive: “All were turned on the same lathe in Iran.”

Israeli officials had been warning the Americans about those bombs. Their own troops had encountered them while occupying Lebanon, where the diabolically lethal innovations had been planted by Hezbollah, the militia Iran helped establish and subsequently armed. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Tehran directed them to be used against an enemy it had been fighting, in one way or another, since 1979.

Read More: Iran Delivers Furious Warning, Speaks of ‘Unprecedented Level of Danger and Chaos’ After ‘Heinous’ U.S. Strikes

That was the year everyday Iranians rose up against the King (or Shah) who had been put in place a quarter century earlier by the U.S. and British, in a CIA-directed coup bringing down a democratically-elected government (one that had kicked a British oil company out of the country). A half century later, Iranian citizens could be relied upon to bring up the coup to American reporters doing in-person interviews on Tehran streets decorated with wartime propaganda. The entire side of a tall building in Tehran shows the American flag with the stars replaced by skulls and the stripes formed by descending bombs. The mural, which had faded over the decades, was redone with fresh paint a few months ago.

The famous “Death to America” slogan is still on the wall of the park-like compound that once held the U.S. Embassy. The place was officially dubbed “the Den of Spies” when it was overrun by supporters of the regime that replaced the Shah—a revolutionary movement led by a charismatic Shi’ite cleric named Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. (TIME’s Person of the Year in 1979 is not to be confused with his similarly named successor, 86-year-old Ali Khamenei, who finally has reportedly nominated his own candidates as successor.) The former embassy is now a museum and, as TripAdvisor makes clear, an effective one. When Iranians were coming over the gates, American diplomats and spies scrambled to feed secrets into paper shredders, reducing their secret documents to strips of paper maybe an eighth-of-an-inch wide. The zeal of the 1979 revolution is still visible on the tables of the Den of Spies, in the papers true believers re-assembled strand-by-strand.

Over 50 U.S. diplomats remained in the embassy as hostages for 444 days. The humiliation the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran inflicted on the United States may have been on par with the humiliation the regime is experiencing now.

The hitch, for both the U.S. and Israel, is that bringing the attack to Iran, as a country, risks stirring the nationalist response of a nation that goes back 2,500 years. Most Iranians loathe their government, and may have looked on with a certain interest on June 13, when the Israeli warplanes and drones descended, both from abroad and from a base Mossad set up near Tehran. (A joke making the rounds in Tehran had one of Iran’s retaliatory strikes hitting the headquarters of Mossad, but it was empty: All the agents were inside Iran.)

At the time its secret nuclear program was revealed in 2002, people still held out hope that they could alter their government at the ballot box. But the political reform movement failed, and the stiffening, increasingly unpopular regime understood that it could no longer count on its population. Instead, it placed its hopes for survival in thugs beating protesters in the streets, and acquiring a nuclear weapon.

A large majority of Iranians have no love for the regime. In small towns and cities alike, they have been rising up against their oppressive government at irregular intervals, for decades.

But any kind of bomb is terrifying, and after the first night of attacks, Israel’s warplanes moved beyond military targets and assassinations. An oil refinery was bombed. The casualties of a strike on Tajrish Square, a bustling bazaar in Tehran’s north, included a water main and a well-known graphic designer, who was waiting at a red light. The specter of Gaza now looms over every Israeli military operation. After Iran’s retaliatory missiles claimed Israeli lives, Israel’s defense minister threatened that “Tehran will burn.”
Inside Iran, opposing the government does not extend to supporting attacks by foreign militaries. A group of human rights, civil society, and political activists who, as they put it, “have always been critical and opposed to the current wrong way of governing,” posted a statement on Telegram saying: “At this critical juncture in our country’s history, when we are confronted with the aggression and arrogance of the racist Israeli government, which has a long history of warmongering, genocide and breaking the fundamental principles of morality and international law, we firmly condemn this attack. We emphasize our serious opposition to any foreign interference. We consider it to be detrimental to the human rights and democracy-seeking efforts of Iranian civil society, and we stand united and steadfast in defending the territorial integrity, independence, national defense capability of our homeland, defending the lives and dignity of human beings, and peace in the region and the world.”

Dread swelled in the neighborhoods around the Tehran atomic research reactor, with the distribution of iodide potassium pills to protect the thyroid against radiation in the air. Experts say the risk of radiation exposure is fairly small around the atomic facilities that the U.S. and Israel have bombed to date, because the ones in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan all deal with enriching uranium, rather than sparking nuclear reactions. But though small, the Tehran reactor (set up by the U.S. in 1967, when the Shah still ruled), operates as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island once did, and in the center of a city of more than nine million people. Those living closest to the reactor were told the pills should be taken by those over the age of 60 and under 40, but only when instructed by state TV, which Israel has also bombed.

Read More: A New Middle East Is Unfolding Before Our Eyes

So, where do things go from here?

To a large extent, that depends on the actions of an Iranian regime that was already unpopular at the start of this assault. But any government bringing its own military inside Iran’s borders should understand the nature of the country. Among Iranians, opposition to the government is grounded in a bedrock pride in their nation, which predates not only the Islamic Republic, but Islam itself. Some on the Iranian plateau still practice Zoroastrianism, the world’s first monotheistic faith, and the foundation for an ancient empire that still informs Iranians’ sense of themselves. That identity can be glimpsed in first names like Darius and Cyrus—the names of Persian emperors—and actually visible in the ruins of Persepolis. There, in the friezes depicting supplicants from nations lining up to pay fealty to the ruler of an ancient empire, some Iranians find themselves seeing the nuclear program exactly as the modern regime has cast it—as the “inalienable right” of any signatory to Non Proliferation Treaty to pursue a nuclear program, so long as it’s peaceful.

Back in Tehran, there was evidence the regime was gaining ground with a public it had largely lost. In a private chat, a university professor told a friend: “Even if Khamenei had packed up the whole nuclear program, Israel would have attacked. Their whole plan was to weaken Iran’s military.”

source https://time.com/7296554/us-strikes-iranian-regime-benefits/

‘Gravely Alarmed’ World Leaders React After U.S. Strikes Iran

The world is reacting after President Donald Trump authorized U.S. strikes on three three key Iranian nuclear sites, joining Israel in its conflict with Iran.

“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” Trump said in an address to the nation on Saturday night. “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Iran has since responded with a grave new warning, threatening “everlasting consequences” and calling for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

Read More: Iran Delivers Furious Warning, Speaks of ‘Unprecedented Level of Danger and Chaos’ After ‘Heinous’ U.S. Strikes

As the world awaits to see what Iran’s next step will be, global leaders are reacting to the news of the strikes.

European Commission

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen posted on social media, saying that “the negotiating table is the only place to end this crisis.”

Von der Leyen maintained that “Iran must never acquire the bomb,” and said the Middle Eastern country should now “engage in a credible diplomatic solution.”

United Nations

Secretary General of the United Nations (U.N.) António Guterres shared a strong statement on social media, stating that he was “gravely alarmed” by the strikes. He called for de-escalation and shared concerns that the conflict could cause a “spiral of chaos.”

“This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge—and a direct threat to international peace and security,” Guterres said. “I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the U.N. Charter and other rules of international law.

He continued by saying there is “no military solution,” and that he believes the only way forward is “diplomacy.” 

Argentina

Argentina’s President Javier Milei, a right-wing ally of Trump’s in Latin America, has yet to comment specifically on the U.S. strikes, but he re-posted a message in the early hours of the morning on June 22.

“Today is a great day for Western civilization,” read the post, authored by Argentine billionaire and businessman Marcos Galperin.

Australia

The Australian government, led by Anthony Albanese, has called for de-escalation but its statement, issued by a spokesperson, did not reveal much of whether or not the government supported the U.S. strikes.

“We note the U.S. President’s statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy.” 

Chile

Chilean President Gabriel Boric condemned the U.S. strikes, calling them a violation of international law. He went on to “demand peace”

“We will defend respect for international humanitarian law at all times,” he said. “Having power does not authorize you to use it in violation of the rules we have established as humanity. Even if you are the United States.”

China

China “strongly condemns” the U.S. strikes, according to state media.

“The actions of the United States seriously violated the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter and international law, and have exacerbated tensions in the Middle East,” a spokesperson said. “China calls on the parties to the conflict, Israel in particular, to reach a ceasefire as soon as possible, ensure the safety of civilians, and start dialogue and negotiation.”

France

The French government released a statement clarifying that France was not involved in the attacks.

The European country reiterated “its firm opposition to Iran gaining access to nuclear weapons,” but also urged both parties to “to exercise restraint.”

“France is convinced that a lasting solution to this issue requires a negotiated solution within the framework of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation. We remain ready to contribute to this in conjunction with our partners,” the statement read. 

Israel

During Trump’s address to the U.S., he thanked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stating that the two of them worked as a team on the Iran strikes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin praised President Trump for conducting the strikes in a video address.

“President Trump and I often say peace through strength. First comes strength, then comes peace,” he said. “And tonight President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength.”

Israeli President Isaac Herzog also thanked Trump, calling the evening a “decisive moment between the axis of terror and evil and the axis of hope.”

“This brave step serves the security and safety of the entire free world. I hope it will lead to a better future for the Middle East—and help advance the urgent release of our hostages held in captivity in Gaza,” he said.

Iran

Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi accused the U.S. of breaching international law and warned that the strikes will have “everlasting consequences.”

“The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations,” Araghchi said.

Russia

Russia’s Foreign Ministry shared a statement on Telegram condemning the airstrikes and calling them “a dangerous escalation… fraught with further undermining of regional and global security.”

The governmental body called the strikes “a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions” and called for an “end to aggression and for increased efforts to create conditions for returning the situation to a political and diplomatic track.”

Saudi Arabia

According to the Saudi Press Agency, the country has expressed “deep concern” over the U.S. strikes and see them as a “violation” of the sovereignty of Iran.

“[The Kingdom] underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,” read a statement attributed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. “The Kingdom also calls upon the international community to intensify its efforts during this highly sensitive period to reach a political resolution that would bring an end to the crisis and open a new chapter for achieving security and stability in the region.”

Spain

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said that he is mourning the civilian lives lost amid the conflict. He highlighted an “urgent need for restraint and de-escalation, for diplomacy and dialogue.”

“Iran must never have access to nuclear weapons, but stability in the region can only be achieved at the negotiating table, with full respect for international law,” Sánchez said. “We need a diplomatic solution that establishes a comprehensive framework of peace and security for all.”

United Kingdom

Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for Iran to “return to the negotiating table” after the U.S. strikes and referred to Iran’s nuclear programme as a “grave threat to international security.”

“The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis,” Starmer said.

source https://time.com/7296530/united-states-strikes-iran-world-leaders-react/

U.S. Joins Israel in Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites, Risking Wider War

President Donald Trump said in a brief address to the nation Saturday evening that U.S. bombers had “totally obliterated” three key Iranian nuclear sites and threatened to hit more targets if Iran refused to “make peace.” The strikes were a rare use of B-2 stealth bombers, a highly secret and central part of U.S. nuclear deterrence strategy, and marked the country unequivocally joining Israel’s campaign to cripple Tehran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” Trump said, after striding down the White House Cross Hall and stepping up to a microphone flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”

The operation marks the most direct American military intervention inside Iran in decades and has reignited fears of a rapidly widening conflict that could draw in proxy forces, endanger U.S. troops, and disrupt global energy markets.

“For 40 years, Iran has been saying, Death to America, Death to Israel,” Trump said. “There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.”

Trump warned of additional airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear program, noting “There are many targets left.”

“Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal,” the President continued. “But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed, and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.”

Trump took a moment to thank Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying “we worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before.” Trump finished his remarks by saying, “God bless the Middle East, God bless Israel, and God bless America.”

Earlier in the evening, Trump announced the strikes had been completed on his Truth Social account, calling the mission “very successful” and noting that all U.S. aircraft had exited Iranian airspace.

“A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at 7:50 pm, referring to the heavily fortified nuclear enrichment site built into a mountain outside the city of Qom. The U.S. also targeted the larger enrichment plant at Natanz and a facility near Isfahan believed to house highly enriched uranium.

“All planes are safely on their way home,” Trump said. “Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!”

The move represents a dramatic shift from Trump’s earlier resistance to deeper U.S. entanglement in foreign wars. He had campaigned on a pledge to end foreign wars and not start new ones, but his decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities underscores the growing pressure he faced from Israel and Republican allies in Congress who viewed this moment as an opportunity to permanently degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities. 

In response to the strikes, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran issued a statement that did not refute Trump’s declarations that the targeted sites had been obliterated. The organization asserted that Iran “will not allow the development of this national industry, which is the result of the blood of nuclear martyrs, to be stopped.”

Trump’s decision to ultimately strike Iran comes just over a week after Israeli forces had already damaged surface-level infrastructure at Natanz and eroded key elements of Iran’s air defenses, in a move that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as a “strike at the head of Iran’s nuclear weaponization program.” But intelligence officials have long said that only American stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound bunker buster bomb could successfully destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear infrastructure, particularly at Fordow, a heavily fortified nuclear enrichment site built into a mountain outside the city of Qom.

In a February meeting, TIME recently reported based on accounts from Israeli officials, Netanyahu warned Trump that Iran was inching closer to crossing the nuclear threshold: increasing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and advancing its centrifuge technology. “Look, Donald,” Netanyahu said, “this has to be tackled, because they’re racing forward.” He then paused for dramatic effect and looked at Trump directly in the eye. “You can’t have a nuclear Iran on your watch.”

The conversation appeared to make an impression. Trump repeatedly vowed that Iran “must never obtain a nuclear weapon” and attempted to make a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear capabilities, but the talks stalled in recent weeks. 

Iran has insisted that it is not developing a bomb and that its nuclear program remains non-weaponized for peaceful energy purposes. However, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog recently reported that Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium—just below weapons-grade—had grown large enough to produce multiple bombs if further enriched. Analysts said Iran could theoretically produce a bomb’s worth of material in as little as a week, and that no other country has that level of uranium without a nuclear weapons program.

The strikes have raised many questions about what comes next, including how Iran will retaliate and whether the conflict will spread across the region. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Trump on Wednesday that strikes against Iran will “result in irreparable damage for them.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said that “any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.”

Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen have previously threatened to resume attacks on U.S. forces in the Red Sea if the U.S. joined Israel’s military operation.

Trump told reporters on Friday that he does not want to send ground forces into Iran, saying it’s “the last thing you want to do.” He had previously said that he would make a final choice over the course of two weeks. 

“I may do it. I may not do it,” he said Wednesday. “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.”

It was not independently verified how much damage was inflicted or whether significant nuclear material and contamination had been released. Israel’s initial strikes were particularly effective and had crippled Iran’s air defenses.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has previously warned that bombing active enrichment sites, particularly Fordow, could pose environmental and health risks.

While many have praised Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, it has also sparked backlash on Capitol Hill, including from some members of his own party. “This is not Constitutional,” Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, wrote on X, suggesting that Congress had not authorized the use of force. Other lawmakers warned that the operation risked triggering a prolonged conflict. “We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east,” Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican and chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote on X.

Multiple Democrats described the strike as “unconstitutional” and “unauthorized.” In a post on X, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called the bombings “a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers” and “clearly grounds for impeachment.”

source https://time.com/7296469/u-s-strikes-iran-nuclear-trump-war/