Three U.S.-led coalition members and two Iraqi solders were injured Saturday, continuing a string of tit-for-tat attacks between the U.S. and Iran-backed militia largely playing out on Iraqi soil.
If you want to trace the history of U.S.-Iran tensions, you would have to go back decades. But the roots of the latest escalation can be found in a series of developments over the past two years.
By a 49%-42% margin, Americans disapprove of how President Trump has handled the crisis with Iran, reflecting the number of people who disapprove of the job he's doing overall.
We should be very worried about the new risks we will confront in a world where senior government officials are considered fair game, writes former diplomat Brett Bruen.
Lawmakers say Trump administration officials have evaded questions about the president's ability to attack Iran. In an interview with NPR, Robert O'Brien said officials can't discuss "hypotheticals."
Majid Takht Ravanchi, speaking to Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, says Iran has no plans for further action against the U.S. but is prepared if Washington renews its aggression.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the plane crash in Tehran that killed 176 people "heartbreaking." One newspaper reported that nearly half of the Canadians who died are from the Edmonton area.
The president and some of his top lieutenants stated and restated on Tuesday that they feared a new attack was imminent and that they were justified in hitting the Quds Force leader.
The House is expected to vote on a War Powers Resolution that could force the president to pull back U.S. troops from hostilities with Iran. The catch: it would have to be veto-proof.