Aggregator
Anthony Volpe has few answers about his murky Yankees future after option decision
There’s room for some mild Mets optimism — here’s why
Obama selling ugly merch shaped liked his presidential center — as architects reveal he pushed for ‘Death Star’ design
US Intelligence Only Sees Limited Additional Damage To Iran Nuclear Program Since Last June
A widely circulating fresh report in Reuters has raised eyebrows and serious questions related to the effectiveness of the 38-day aerial campaign which saw US-Israel bombs unleashed in the many thousands (combined: some 20,000+ munitions expended) on the Islamic Republic.
"US intelligence assessments indicate that the time Iran would need to build a nuclear weapon has not changed since last summer, when analysts estimated that a US-Israeli attack had pushed back the timeline to up to a year, according to three sources familiar with the matter," the report lays out.
"The assessments of Tehran's nuclear program remain broadly unchanged even after two months of a war that US President Donald Trump launched in part to stop the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear bomb," it continues.
The Israelis are believed to have done most of the direct targeting of Iranian nuclear facilities in the late February through April air campaign. This after already since last June, the White House insisted Iran's nuclear program was 'obliterated'.
Again, one wonders what nearly 40 days of record-levels of bombardment of Iranian cities and military sites actually accomplished in terms of degrading Iran's nuclear enrichment capability - which has emerged as the primary US goal (stalled negotiations have centered on the demand that Tehran given up its nuclear material). It seems the needle may have hardly moved in terms of degrading Iranian nuke sites since last June?
The Reuters report gives the following additional conclusion: "The unchanged timeline suggests that significantly impeding Tehran’s nuclear program may require destroying or removing Iran’s remaining stockpile of highly enriched uranium, or HEU."
And that of course brings the situation back to the square one dilemma of whether to launch ground operations to recover what Trump calls the 'nuclear dust' - which further raises the prospect of utter disaster and endless quagmire (and there are signs of quagmire already, even without ground forces).
In shifting from 'Epic Fury' to 'Project Freedom' - the US administration seems to want to find a way out of this without a protracted ground war, which would mean serious losses in blood and treasure. The below is the official latest White House position:
While Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities, Operation Epic Fury built on this success by decimating Iran’s defense industrial base that they once leveraged as a protective shield around their pursuit of a nuclear weapon,” said White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales, referring to the June operation and the latest war that began in February.
"President Trump has long been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon – and he does not bluff."
But Iran has countered that it considers its enriched uranium stockpile a matter of national sovereignty, and will 'never' allow it to be transferred outside the country.
Next round of US-Israeli bombing being planned?
An Israeli official told CNN:
The coordination between Israel and the United States includes preparations for a round of strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure and senior officials.
“The intention is to carry out a short operation aimed at pressuring Iran to make further…
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei two weeks ago denied reports at the time which said Tehran had agreed to transfer its highly enriched uranium abroad, saying "enriched uranium is sacred to us, as is Iranian soil." The Iranians have since repeatedly made clear that the issue is a non-starter, and wants to focus talks on opening Hormuz and ending the war.
Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 19:40The under-the-radar fix Mike Brown knowns Knicks need to make against 76ers
James Dolan spins Sphere earnings call into playful Shai Gilgeous-Alexander jab
Yankees will soon honor John Sterling with jersey patch for rest of 2026
Ladies at this year’s Met Gala were dressed down — underwear is now outerwear
Chaotic moment Delta passenger takes over gate counter and tees off on staff
Panicking LA bosses scramble after bombshell Supreme Court voting ruling
Defiant NYers to take Philly by storm despite Sixers’ attempt to keep Knicks fans out
‘Proud’ mom Rebel Wilson welcomes baby No. 2: ‘What a gorgeous blessing’
‘Proud’ mom Rebel Wilson welcomes baby No. 2: ‘What a gorgeous blessing’
Vance makes three-state blitz to boost GOP in midterms: ‘Not rocket science’
Save George Washington from woke smears in time for America 250
DOJ Sues Minnesota To Block Climate Lawsuit Targeting Energy Companies
Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing Minnesota over the state’s own climate lawsuit against major energy companies.
Pumpjacks operate near the site of a new oil and gas well being drilled in Midland, Texas, on April 8, 2022. Eli Hartman/Odessa American via APThe complaint, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, accuses state officials of trying to impose their own climate policies on domestic energy producers in a way the DOJ says burdens national energy development and intrudes on federal authority.
The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2020 by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison against Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and Koch subsidiary Flint Hills Resources. Minnesota brought the case under state consumer-protection laws, alleging that the companies engaged in fraud and deceptive business practices by misleading the public about “climate change and the role of fossil-fuel products in climate change.”
That lawsuit remains pending after years of procedural fights over whether it belongs in state or federal court. Minnesota succeeded in keeping the case in state court in 2024, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a lower-court ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed there.
In its new complaint, the DOJ argues that authority over national energy policy and major questions involving greenhouse gas emissions rests with the federal government, not individual states. The department is asking the court to block Minnesota from pursuing the 2020 lawsuit and prevent the state from bringing similar litigation in the future.
“Climate change lawsuits, like Minnesota’s, artfully plead around federal law while transparently seeking to change national energy policy related to global greenhouse gas emissions and to regulate conduct beyond local borders,” the complaint states.
The federal government’s move to counter climate litigation with its own lawsuit follows an executive order issued last year by President Donald Trump, who directed the DOJ to “take all appropriate action to stop” state lawsuits seeking to “dictate national energy policy.”
“President Trump promised to unleash American energy dominance, and Minnesota officials cannot undermine his directive by mandating that their woke climate preferences become the uniform policy of our Nation,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.
Ellison, who is named as a defendant in the DOJ lawsuit, pledged to seek dismissal of what his office called a “frivolous and meritless” case.
“In 2020, I sued Big Oil for lying to Minnesotans about the true causes of climate change, then sticking us with the bill for the harms it is causing,” Ellison said in a statement. “Six years later, we are still waiting to go to trial because Big Oil has pulled every procedural trick in the book to delay facing the consequences of their unlawful actions.”
Minnesota is among a number of states and local governments that have turned to consumer-protection, public-nuisance, and similar laws to sue major oil and gas companies over the climate impact of their products. Those lawsuits generally accuse the companies of misleading the public about climate risks while seeking to hold them financially responsible for infrastructure costs, natural disaster- or health care-related costs, and other damages.
The DOJ has taken aim at several such efforts. Last year, it filed preemptive lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan, though both were dismissed by federal judges. Separate DOJ challenges to New York and Vermont’s laws, which seek to impose penalties tied to past greenhouse gas emissions to fund disaster relief and climate-related projects, remain pending.
Allowing individual states to use courts to advance climate goals, the Trump administration argued, would create a patchwork of conflicting regulations and interfere with the executive branch’s authority over national energy security and interstate commerce.
“When states target or discriminate against out-of-state energy producers by imposing significant barriers to interstate and international trade, American energy suffers,” Trump’s executive order stated.
Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 19:15