Follow us on social

Pete Hegseth

Update: US warnings, evacuations came only a day before attacks

Israel strikes several Iranian cities as Washington insists it was and will not be involved

Reporting | Middle East

Update 6/12 11PM: Israel has bombed numerous targets in Tehran and several other cities housing its nuclear program and bases, killing scientists and top military officials. Iran officials have vowed retaliation; Washington is insisting it was not involved in Israeli attacks. Please see Jim Lobe's updates here.


Update 6/12 12:45PM: CBS News is reporting that U.S. officials are aware that the Israeli military is fully ready to launch attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. An expected Iranian retaliation would be why the U.S. government announced the evacuations and voluntary departures yesterday.

CBS is also hearing from multiple sources that in the event of such action by Israel, the U.S. could play a supporting role with refueling and intelligence, but not "lead" or help bomb the Iranian sites with American munitions. There has been no "commitment" either way, however.

This led podcaster Saagar Enjeti to charge that this proves that Israel is not acting "independently" of Washington.

"The narrative of an independent Israeli strike is bunk then. This would be a US sanctioned operation and we must stand against it"


Setting everyone on edge and grasping for insight, the Trump administration issued evacuation orders for non-essential personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, and its diplomatic facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait on Wednesday.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also reportedly told FOX News that there would be voluntary departure for dependents of military personnel serving in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations across the Middle East. Fox's military correspondent Jennifer Griffin quoted CENTCOM on X:

"The safety and security of our service members and their families remains our highest priority and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations across the CENTCOM AOR. CENTCOM is working in close coordination with our Department of State counterparts, as well as our Allies and partners in the region to maintain a constant state of readiness to support any number of missions around the world at any time."

Meanwhile, the UK's Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a British maritime security agency, issued its own "unusual" warning, citing “increasing regional tension” that could pose threats to ships in the region.

“UKMTO has been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners,” the advisory said. “Vessels are advised to transit the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz with caution.”

By Wednesday night, the media was speculating widely that the administration is worried about an imminent strike by Israel on Iran. Asked about the developments at a Kennedy Center event, Trump acknowledged that U.S. citizens were being moved out of the Middle East, saying “it could be a dangerous place. ... We’ve given notice to move out; we’ll see what happens.”

“We are watching and worried,” one senior diplomat in the region told the Washington Post. “We think it’s more serious than any other time in the past.”

Observers are also wondering if the last-minute postponement of a Capitol Hill hearing tomorrow featuring CENTCOM Commander Army Gen. Michael Kurilla has anything to do with the news today. According to Stars & Stripes, the hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee was postponed less than 24-hours before its scheduled time on Thursday. Notably, this is a day after Kurilla (under questioning) acknowledged that the military was prepared to engage in an "overwhelming show of force" if Iran gets a bomb and the president directs CENTCOM to do so.

What is going on?

The warnings and evacuation orders came after Iran publicly threatened to attack U.S. bases in the Middle East if they were attacked first. This, after once-hopeful Iran nuclear deal talks seemed to hit a logjam over whether Iran would be able to pursue its right to a civilian enrichment program. Iranian officials appeared to be responding to calls from hawks in the U.S. to dismantle Iran's nuclear program by force if necessary.

"Some officials on the other side threaten conflict if negotiations don’t come to fruition. If a conflict is imposed on us … all US bases are within our reach and we will boldly target them in host countries,” Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh told reporters on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, President Trump has been quoted saying he is more pessimistic about the talks, but not explaining why.

“I don’t know,” he told the podcast Pod Force One on Monday, when asked whether he thought a deal might happen. “I’m less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made."

Trump repeated that Iran would be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon either way. “But it would be nicer to do it without warfare, without people dying."

Now we know Israel would prefer that the U.S and/or Israel destroy Iran's nuclear program militarily. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government have expressed growing frustration with Trump's diplomatic path (the negotiations are headed into their sixth round of talks). Iran lashed out earlier this week when it insisted it knows where Israel's secret nuclear weapons arsenal is and threatened to strike it if they were attacked, too.

Interestingly, CNN reported Wednesday that in a phone call with Netanyahu on Monday, Trump warned against a military intervention. This might indicate Israel is more committed to action than has even been reported.

From CNN:

During their call, Trump asked Netanyahu to stop talking about an attack on Iran, the source familiar with the conversation said, and halt the leaks and reports about plans and preparations for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Netanyahu has repeatedly pushed for a military option to stop Iran’s nuclear program. In the conversation with Trump, Netanyahu told Trump that Iran is just trying to buy time and isn’t serious about negotiations, the source said. CNN reported last month that Israel was preparing for a possible strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

No doubt the concern is Israel will go through with something, that Iran will retaliate, and the U.S. will be compelled to intervene on Israel's behalf, as it did twice since the beginning of the Gaza War in 2023. As Al-Monitor correspondent Elizabeth Hagedorn noted in an X post about the evacuations: "Former US official tells me, 'This is what we would do if we or Israel were about to go kinetic.'"

Daniel Shapiro, former State Department/DoD official, said something similar on X: "Ordered departure from US Emb Baghdad could reflect a major threat, but also is impactful as a means of signaling possible near-term military action against Iran. It's a big move, hard to reverse quickly, comes at some cost. So if signaling, you play this card when you mean it."

This article is being updated as the story develops.


Top photo credit: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (shutterstock/joshua sukoff)
Hegseth orders 8% cut to Pentagon budget. Not so fast.
Reporting | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Air sickness symptoms: Old nukes and the F-35

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa
Top image credit: 3rd SFG Soldiers on the range with Republic of Mali Armed Forces during a training exercise. Fort Bragg, NC. 8/4/2009 US Army Special Operations Command

Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa

Africa

The Trump administration is reportedly increasing its intelligence sharing and military support to military-ruled Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger — all as part of a transactional framework aimed at boosting American access to critical minerals while also contesting Russian and Chinese influence in Africa. The administration’s approach may well find a receptive audience in Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey, as well as within hawkish elements of the national security bureaucracy back in Washington. Yet the enhanced support is unlikely to make a meaningful difference in combating insurgencies in the troubled Sahel region.

The central Sahelian countries have been troubled by jihadist activity since the 2000s, and a rebellion in northern Mali in 2012 provided jihadists an even greater role in the region. Intensive French counterterrorism operations from 2013 to 2022 initially knocked jihadists back. Yet from 2015 onwards, insurgency spread from northern Mali into central zones of that country and into Burkina Faso and Niger, eventually spilling over into Benin, Togo, and Cote d’Ivoire as well (although Cote d’Ivoire has achieved some tenuous success in blunting jihadists’ momentum there).

keep readingShow less
Ursula von der Leyen Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: miss.cabul and noamgalai via shutterstock.com

Europe finally stands up to Israel — but only halfway

Europe

In a significant and long-overdue shift, the European Commission has finally moved to recalibrate its relationship with Israel. Its proposed package of measures — sanctioning extremist Israeli ministers and violent settlers and suspending valuable trade concessions — marks the most substantive attempt by the EU to impose consequences for the Netanyahu government’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who once stood accused of a pronounced pro-Israeli bias, now states unequivocally that “the horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop.” Her declaration that the EU remains an “unwavering champion of the two-state solution” being “undermined by the Israeli government’s recent settlement actions” is a stark admission that Brussels can no longer ignore the chasm between its stated principles and its enabling actions.

These steps are important. They signal a breaking point with an Israeli government that has dismissed, with increasing contempt, the concerns of its European partners. The proposed tariffs, reinstating Most Favored Nation rates on €5.8 billion of Israeli exports, are not merely symbolic; they are a tangible economic pressure designed to get Jerusalem’s attention. The targeted sanctions against ministers responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and policies add a necessary layer of personal accountability.

Yet, for all its heft, this package suffers from critical flaws: it is horribly late, it remains dangerously incomplete, and it is a crisis, to a large degree, of Europe’s own making.

First, the delay. For almost two years since Hamas’ attack on Israel and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza leading to the killing of more than 60,000 people the world has watched the devastating conflict unfold. The EU, “the biggest donor of humanitarian aid,” has been forced to react to a catastrophe its own trade and political support helped underwrite. This response, only now materializing after immense public and diplomatic pressure, feels less like proactive statecraft and more like a belated attempt to catch up to reality — and to the moral courage already shown by several of its own member states.

Second, and most glaringly, the package omits the most logical and legally sound measure: a full ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. This is a profound failure of principle and policy. The settlements are universally recognized under international law as illegal. They are the very engine of the occupation that von der Leyen now claims is undermining the two-state solution.

While the Commission hesitates, what the Brussels-based head of the European Middle East Project Martin Konecny calls “a domino effect” is taking hold at the national level. The Dutch government has just announced it will ban imports from Israeli settlements, becoming the fifth EU member state to do so, following recent and decisive moves by Ireland, Slovenia, Belgium, and Spain. This growing coalition underscores both the moral imperative and the political feasibility of such a measure that the Commission continues to avoid.

Furthermore, this is not merely a political choice; it is a legal obligation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its landmark opinion last year, made clear that all states are required to cease trade and support that facilitates Israel’s illegal settlement regime. As a matter of EU law, a union-wide ban could — and should — be implemented by a qualified majority vote as a necessary trade measure to uphold fundamental legal principles. The continued failure to do so renders the EU complicit in perpetuating the very system it now claims to oppose.

Third, the Commission’s entire approach suffers from a crippling legal and moral loophole: its proposed measures are framed purely through a humanitarian lens, deliberately sidestepping the EU’s explicit legal obligations to prevent genocide. By focusing solely on suspending parts of the Association Agreement, the proposal ignores the most direct form of complicity — the continued flow of arms from member states to Israel.

These lethal transfers, which fall outside the Agreement’s scope, are the subject of Nicaragua’s landmark case against Germany at the ICJ, which argues that providing weapons to a state plausibly committing genocide is a violation of the Genocide Convention. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany alone accounted for 30% of Israel’s major arms imports in 2019-2023. Berlin continued licensing the arms exports after the outbreak of war in 2023. The Commission’s failure to even address, let alone propose to halt, this pipeline of weapons from the member states while invoking “horrific events” reveals a strategic timidity that undermines the very rule of law it claims to defend.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.