2026-03-02 02:40:29
Just one in four Americans supports the Trump administration’s ongoing strikes on Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday.
The disapproval rating was 43 percent, while 29 percent said they were not sure.
About half of respondents—including one in four Republicans—said the president was too open to using military force. The poll surveyed 1,282 US adults starting on Saturday, following news breaking of the strikes.
Even before the attacks, Trump’s handling of Iran was unpopular. Back in January, a Reuters/Ipsos found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of the president’s policy with Iran, while 43 percent disapproved.
For comparison, in the seven months prior to the US invasion of Iraq, a Gallup poll found that somewhere between 52 and 63 percent of Americans favored an invasion. And in the days following the beginning of the war, Gallup found that 72 percent supported the military action. Although these numbers are based on Gallup polling, the both surveys come from samples of over 1,000 US adults and, similarly, note a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
As my colleague Katie Herchenroeder noted on Saturday, there have been massive demonstrations around the world against the US and Israeli strikes against Iran, and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the attacks at a UN Security Council meeting. Congress is expected to vote on a war powers resolution this week in an attempt to stop the strikes.
2026-03-02 01:10:53
Key members of Congress are calling for a vote on a war powers resolution on Monday to stop the Trump administration from continuing its illegal military assault against Iran without congressional authorization.
The strikes, which began early Saturday, have been widespread, reportedly killed over 100 schoolchildren in Minab, a city in southern Iran, as well as Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran has retaliated, targeting US bases and allies in the region. Three US service members were killed in action on Sunday morning.
The White House reportedly notified some members of the House and Senate Armed Service committees only after the strikes had already begun. Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power to declare war, and the War Powers Act all0ws Congress to halt unauthorized military action by requiring troop withdrawal within 60 to 90 days.
The House of Representatives’ bipartisan resolution, led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), would require Trump “to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran…unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.”
But in practice, Congress’s power is limited to halt Trump’s military actions, given that any resolution could be vetoed by the president and would require a two-thirds congressional majority to overturn. Even if the resolution on Iran does pass, it will likely be by a narrow margin, since Republican leadership, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), have backed the US and Israeli strikes. In January, Senate Republicans blocked a similar war powers resolution after Trump’s attacks on Venezuela.
As a result, any vote on a war powers resolution would be largely symbolic. But members of Congress say the vote is important anyway to make clear their stance on the war. “The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war,” Massie wrote on X on Saturday.
2026-03-01 20:30:00
This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Ritidian Point, at the northern tip of Guam, is home to an ancient limestone forest with panoramic vistas of warm Pacific waters. Stand here in early spring and you might just be lucky enough to witness a breaching humpback whale as they migrate past. But listen and you’ll be struck by the cacophony of the island’s live-fire testing range.
Widely referred to as the “tip of the spear” in the American arsenal, Guam—which is smaller than New York City but home to a military community of nearly 23,000—is a dichotomy of majestic nature and military might.
The real powerhouse of the Pacific exists not on land but just below the water’s surface in its biological resilience, which is now threatened by the Pentagon’s quest for strategic deterrence. The weapons that miss their target on the testing range will soon find a different one, sinking down to the most diverse coral reef of any U.S. jurisdiction. A battle between the two is now emerging.
The U.S. government is accelerating coral reef collapse around Guam, alleges a team of international researchers in a letter released this month in Science. They warn administration pressures to prioritize national security—through dredging projects, increased military infrastructure and live firing ranges—will cause harm to endangered habitats.
In 2023, a marine heatwave in Florida resulted in a roughly 98 percent mortality rate of elkhorn and staghorn colonies.
Additionally, a fundamental misunderstanding of coral taxonomy in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is exacerbating the ecological harm to fisheries and reefs. Without intervention, these Pacific habitats now risk the same “functional extinction” experienced in Florida.
“The United States government seems to be softening conservation policies in ways that allow companies and the military to avoid regulation,” said Colin Anthony, a doctoral fellow at the University of Tokyo and the paper’s lead author.
For a time last summer, conservation seemed ascendant. In July, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rejected a Navy request to expand exempt military zones in northern Guam, citing conservation benefits outweighing national security concerns at Ritidian Point. On the same day, NOAA finalized a rule designating critical habitat for five threatened coral species across 92 square miles of the Pacific, including in Guam and American Samoa.
However, the victories were short-lived. Following President Trump’s issuance of Executive Order 14154—“Unleashing American Energy”—on his first day in office in January 2025, federal agencies were pressured to remove any “undue burdens” on energy production and security. In November 2025, NOAA followed up by proposing expanded authority to bypass critical habitat regulations.
The provisions sought to remove language that required decision-making to be made “without reference to possible economic or other impacts.” Researchers have warned this prioritizes short-term economic interests over science and opens up vulnerable marine preserves to deep-sea mining, fishing and military expansion.
NOAA’s proposed changes also look to reclassify the “environmental baseline,” meaning the Navy could treat a degraded reef not as a problem to be addressed but as the fixed starting point. Baking in decades of ecological harm effectively insulates activity from ESA scrutiny and allows the Navy to cite “national security” as a blanket justification for any new projects, even if they fall in endangered marine habitats.
Additionally, owing to a “conservation gap” in ESA policy, reef-building corals are disappearing faster than scientists can identify them. Guidelines require clear categorization of species to determine their endangered status, however, corals are “phenotypically plastic,” meaning they change their features depending on light, water flow or depth.
Unlike land animals, it is difficult for researchers to neatly categorize species based on reproduction compatibility. Scientists must instead acquire genetic material and decide on a set of identifiable traits for a species that can sometimes span the entirety of the Pacific Ocean.
“Many of the corals in the Indo-Pacific, such as those in Guam, have not been taxonomically verified via DNA barcoding,” said Laurie Raymundo, a biology professor and director of the University of Guam Marine Laboratory. Although DNA analysis is now the norm, it is costly and time-consuming, meaning endemic species could disappear before ever being documented.
“Unlike Florida, for the Pacific, it’s not too late. We still have corals. They’re recoverable, especially if appropriate policy is implemented.”
Chief among them are Acropora corals, a foundation species that build the structural framework of many reefs. Though all arborescent Acropora corals—those with tree-like branches—from Guam and the wider Pacific are classified as “Endangered” on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, many remain unprotected under the ESA.
Guam lost between 34 percent and 37 percent of its live coral between 2013 and 2017 due to repeated heatwaves, low tides and infectious diseases. While the island has escaped bleaching episodes since, future heatwaves could prove similarly fatal. “Each year, we brace ourselves for the next one,” said Raymundo, who highlighted how difficult a time it is to be a conservation biologist in the region.
Staghorn Acropora corals also tend to grow in massive thickets hundreds of meters in diameter. Often composed of a single genotype, these corals are unable to self-fertilize and therefore have very little chance of new settlements.
The researchers’ urgency stems from the recent collapse of similar corals in Florida. In 2023, a marine heatwave resulted in a roughly 98 percent mortality rate of elkhorn and staghorn colonies. Now declared “functionally extinct,” these corals do not exist in sufficient numbers in the state’s waters to provide effective coastal protection or thriving habitats for marine life.
“The problem is, if you’re the US military, anything you do can be cited as being for national security,” said Anthony. “Even if the appropriate process would just be an extra round of ecological surveys to make sure everything is done with the best intention to avoid unnecessary harm.”
Indigenous Chamorro people on Guam—who can trace their roots back over 3,000 years—have also not forgotten the environmental harm caused by the military’s past use of PCBs, PFAS and dieldrin.
“I do see signs of anger and frustration among communities impacted by the need of a few to make money,” said Raymundo, highlighting how small island nations contribute little to climate change but are at the forefront of the impacts. “Too often we see that economic gain does not translate into food, health and education security for the majority of people.”
Some outer-lying islands in the region have already lost homes and can no longer grow crops due to salt water intrusion. Meanwhile, in January 2026, NOAA launched a survey to map over 30,000 square miles of waters off American Samoa for critical mineral reserves. A move described as the federal agency “shifting from science to prospecting,” by the New York Times.
Researchers are calling for NOAA to reverse its ESA proposals and extend protections to the Acropora genus, regardless of specific species. They argue this would bypass taxonomic uncertainty, simplify surveys and ensure increased levels of protection.
They note that the ESA already allows for the inclusion of specific populations or sub-species—like the Cook Inlet beluga whale or the southern resident killer whale—and so call for the same logic to be applied before Guam’s rich marine ecosystem goes the way of Florida’s.
“Florida has become a glimpse into the future for the Pacific Ocean,” said Anthony. “Unlike Florida, for the Pacific, it’s not too late. We still have corals. They’re recoverable, especially if appropriate policy is implemented.”
2026-03-01 03:36:17
As the death toll reportedly rises in Iran and violence spreads through the Middle East, people around the world are responding to the war launched Saturday by the United States and Israel. Confusion, fear, celebration, destruction, and protest have defined the last 12 hours.
Here are some of the scenes unfolding across the globe:
2026-03-01 02:09:47
In the wee hours of Saturday morning, President Donald Trump announced he had launched a war against Iran. He insisted that Iran posed a direct threat to the United States. He detailed its past acts of aggression. He claimed he had tried to reach a deal with Tehran to end its nuclear program. He warned the public that American soldiers might die as a result of this attack. He noted that the aim of this war was to end the Iranian regime and urged the people of Iran to rise up and “take over your government.”
What Trump did not say was that he had a plan.
It’s easy for an American president to bomb a country. It’s much tougher to figure out what to do in the aftermath. Trump, who initiated this attack with Israel without seeking congressional authorization (as the Constitution requires), clearly engaged in little, if any, preparation for what comes following this “massive” operation, as he termed it.
Trump appears to be winging it, letting loose the dogs of war and then seeing what the hell happens.
For years, Trump has demonstrated that he often sees no need for plans. He vowed repeatedly during the 2024 campaign that he could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. But he had no plan to do so. In his first term as president, he said he could deliver cheaper and better health care. But he proposed no plan for that. He also said he would rebuild American infrastructure and, again, put forward no plan. He tends to act impulsively, believing chaos and discord can be exploited by a masterful negotiator, as he sees himself.
Yet one of the most obvious lessons of the past 25 years is that warring requires planning—not just for the initial assault but for what occurs afterward. The best example is the Iraq War. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld had no idea what to do after the invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime. In the violent chaos that ensued for years afterward, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died, ISIS arose, regional instability reigned—and Iran consolidated power.
It’s not that the brighter bulbs of the Bush-Cheney administration did not see the need to prep for the post-invasion period. As Michael Isikoff and I reported in Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, in the months prior to the war—when it was evident Bush was committed to attacking Iraq—there were several well-executed projects focused on what would need to be done after Saddam was forcibly removed from power.
A small Pentagon unit examined this question, assuming a high level of violence would continue after Saddam was deposed. Its analysts concluded that an enormous number of US troops would be required to provide security throughout the country—a greater amount than those being sent to Iraq for the invasion.
Separately, the Army deputy chief of staff for operations and plans asked the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute to examine post-war questions, and it produced a report identifying numerous challenges for any occupation. The paper tallied 135 post-invasion tasks that would have to be accomplished to reestablish an Iraqi state. This included securing the borders, setting up local governments, protecting religious sites, maintaining power systems, opening hospitals, and disarming militias. A big concern was what to do about the Iraqi Army. This paper recommended not disbanding it. (The Bush-Cheney crowd did dismantle the army, a move that fueled vicious sectarian violence.) “Massive resources need to be focused on this [post-occupation] effort,” the report said.
The State Department, too, tried to do the responsible thing. A year before the invasion, it established the Future of Iraq project. This operation had 17 working groups, full of Iraqi exiles (lawyers, engineers, academics, and businesspeople), that considered all the steps necessary to remake a post-Saddam Iraq: reorganizing the military and police, creating a new legal system, restructuring the economy, and repairing the nation’s water and electric power system, among many other tasks.
The Bush-Cheney White House wasn’t interested in any of these exercises. In one pre-invasion meeting of the National Security Council, Bush asked Gen. Tommy Franks, the CENTCOM commander in charge of the invasion, about security in Iraq after Saddam’s ouster. Who would maintain law and order? he inquired. Franks said he had that covered: The US would keep the peace, and each major Iraqi town and village would have a “lord mayor”—an appointed US military officer who would be in charge of preserving civic order and administering basic services.
That was an idiotic concept. Worse, there was not even a true plan to designate and install these “lord mayors.” This seemed to be just Franks’ own fanciful notion. No such exercise was even attempted following the invasion. The lack of a post-Saddam game plan led to a debacle.
The Iraq War case illustrates both how much work it took to devise post-war plans and the disastrous results that came from the Bush-Cheney gang eschewing these preparations for the aftermath.
There’s no sign that the Trump administration has spent months—or even days— working out what should be done after this military operation. Instead, his Pentagon spent the hours leading up to the attack feuding with an American AI company, various “woke” universities, and Scouting America. Trump appears to be winging it, letting loose the dogs of war and then seeing what the hell happens.
There’s another Bush-related episode that casts a shadow on Trump’s actions. In his statement, Trump egged on the Iranian people to rebel against the mullahs, declaring: “America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach.”
This sounded familiar. At the end of the Persian Gulf War that President George H.W. Bush launched in 1991 to drive Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait, the elder Bush called for “the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.” Many Iraqis took this as a signal that the United States would support them if they mounted a revolution, and they did so. Bush did nothing to assist these rebels, and to quell this uprising Saddam slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Trump appears to be following the bad examples of both Bushes. There are no preparations for what to do if he succeeds in driving the ayatollahs out of power and no strategy for protecting the opposition should it heed Trump’s call and face a further violent crackdown.
Trump has no plan for Iran. Just blow shit up, kill some people, and hope for the best. Tehran, for all its horrific transgressions (including its recent killing of thousands of protesters), did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. Perhaps military action against this regime could be justified. But there was ample time to seek congressional authorization and an international alliance for a regime-change war. Instead, Trump proceeded with an unconstitutional action without readying for what is to follow. It is the war of a Mad King.
2026-03-01 01:03:49
The United States and Israel launched a massive military assault against Iran on Saturday—a steep and sudden escalation following negotiations between the US and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program. According to President Donald Trump and senior Israeli officials, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials have been killed in the attacks. Iran has retaliated, targeting American bases and US-allied countries across the region.
It’s unclear how many people have been killed so far. Iran’s state-run Islamic Republic News Agency, or IRNA, has reported significant casualties, including dozens killed at a girl’s school during a US-Israel strike; the New York Times said that it was unable to immediately verify that report. According to the United Arab Emirates, one person was killed by falling debris from an Iranian ballistic missile.
In an 8-minute video posted to Truth Social early Saturday, Trump confirmed the attacks, calling the Iranian regime a “vicious group of very hard, terrible people.” He described the operation as “major combat activities” and said his administration had taken steps to minimize risk to US forces in the region. But, he added, “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.”
Trump urged the Iranian people to “take over their government” following the attacks. Anti-government protests in the nation have been taking place for months, and the regime has responded with a brutal crackdown. According to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, Iranian forces had killed more than 7,000 people as of February 11; tens of thousands more have been arrested.
Trump referred to those atrocities in his video Saturday. He also blamed Iran for the failed nuclear negotiations, claiming, “They rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore.”
Badr Albusaidi, the Omani foreign minister who was mediating negotiations before the attacks, said Saturday that he was “dismayed.”
“Active and serious negotiations have yet again been undermined. Neither the interests of the United States nor the cause of global peace are well served by this,” Albusaidi wrote on social media. “And I pray for the innocents who will suffer. I urge the United States not to get sucked in further. This is not your war.”
The response from global leaders allied with the US was mixed.
Canada and Australia backed the campaign against Iran. Britain, France, and Germany issued a joint statement, saying they were critical of Iran’s nuclear policies and “the appalling violence and repression against its own people.” But that trio of countries stopped short of explicitly supporting the strikes. “We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States, Israel, and partners in the region,” the statement said. “We reiterate our commitment to regional stability and to the protection of civilian life.”
As US and Israeli strikes continued and Iranian forces launched their own attacks, civilians around the region rushed to whatever safe space they could find. An engineer living in Tehran described the fear in a text message to the New York Times: “My children are crying and scared. We are huddling in the bathroom. We don’t know what to do. This is terrifying.”
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
