ICJ to Hear Landmark Genocide Case Against Myanmar Over Rohingya Crisis 
UK and NATO Allies Hold Routine Talks on Arctic Security Amid Greenland Deployment Reports 
Markets React as Tensions Rise Between White House and Federal Reserve Over Interest Rate Pressure 
Norwegian Nobel Institute Clarifies Nobel Peace Prize Rules After Trump Remarks 
Trump Reignites Greenland Takeover Claims, Citing U.S. Security and NATO Tensions 
Russia Fires Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile Near NATO Border in Escalation of Ukraine War 
Israeli Fire Kills Palestinians in Gaza as Ceasefire Tensions Escalate 
Bangladesh Signals Willingness to Join International Stabilization Force in Gaza 
Trump Signs Executive Order to Protect Venezuelan Oil Revenue Held in U.S. Accounts 
Russia Launches Overnight Air Attack on Kyiv, Causing Fire as Air Defenses Respond 
Trump Weighs Blocking Exxon Investment as Venezuela Deemed “Uninvestable” 
DHS Sends Hundreds More Officers to Minnesota After ICE Shooting Sparks Nationwide Protests 
Who Is Li Chenggang? The Diplomat Shaping U.S.-China Trade Talks 
Jimmy Lai Faces Sentencing as Hong Kong Security Trial Nears Conclusion 
Trump Considers Starlink to Restore Internet Access in Iran Amid Protests 
U.S. Prosecutors Investigate Fed Chair Jerome Powell Over Headquarters Renovation 
Jerome Powell Says Trump Administration Threatened Criminal Charges Over Fed Testimony 
Some U.S. lawmakers from both major political parties are questioning whether military action against Iran is the best course for the United States as the country experiences its most significant anti-government protests in years. The debate comes as U.S. President Donald Trump has signaled that American intervention remains a possibility, raising concerns about the potential consequences of escalating tensions with Tehran.
Iranian authorities, including the powerful Revolutionary Guards, have blamed the unrest on terrorist elements and vowed to protect the current governing system. However, several U.S. senators warned that direct military strikes could backfire. Republican Senator Rand Paul stated during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” that bombing Iran may not achieve the intended results, arguing that external attacks often unite populations against a foreign threat rather than weaken governments.
Democratic Senator Mark Warner echoed similar concerns on “Fox News Sunday,” cautioning that U.S. military action could unify Iranians against the United States in a way the Iranian leadership has been unable to do on its own. Warner referenced historical precedent, noting that the U.S.-backed overthrow of Iran’s government in 1953 contributed to long-term instability and ultimately led to the establishment of the Islamic regime in the late 1970s.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, U.S. military and diplomatic officials are expected to brief President Trump on various options for Iran, including cyberattacks and possible military measures. Meanwhile, Iran has warned that it would target U.S. military bases if attacked, further heightening regional security concerns.
Not all lawmakers oppose a forceful response. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham argued that the U.S. should take stronger action to support protesters and intimidate Iran’s leadership, suggesting that decisive measures are necessary to stop violence against civilians.
Adding to the political complexity, Reza Pahlavi, the U.S.-based son of Iran’s former shah, announced his readiness to return to Iran to help lead a transition toward a democratic government. He emphasized transparency, free elections, and giving Iranians the power to determine their own future.
As debates over U.S. foreign policy toward Iran continue, the situation remains fluid, with potential implications for regional stability and global security.
