The joint American and Israeli military operation launched against Iran on Saturday — dubbed Operation Epic Fury — has prompted mixed responses abroad.

While Russian officials were among the most critical of the strikes, several European leaders similarly condemned the American-Israeli initiative.

Amid reports of massive explosions in numerous Iranian cities as well as retaliatory attacks on American bases in the region and Israel, a spokesman for the British government stated, “We do not want to see further escalation into a wider regional conflict.”

The British spokesman — whose government previously blocked a request from President Donald Trump to use U.K. air bases during a preemptive attack on Iran —added that “Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and that is why we have continually supported efforts to reach a negotiated solution.”

‘Take all firm measures necessary to confront Iranian violations.’

Whereas the U.K. government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer appeared less than enthusiastic about the strikes, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch expressed solidarity with the U.S. and Israel “as they take on the threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its vile regime.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke critically of “Iran’s murderous regime and the Revolutionary Guards,” but claimed that the “developments in Iran are greatly concerning” and urged “all parties to exercise maximum restraint, to protect civilians, and to fully respect international law.”

Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs noted that it “is deeply alarmed by today’s strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran,” and echoed von der Leyen’s request that warring parties “exercise maximum restraint, protect civilians and civilian infrastructure.”

RELATED: Iran sparks regional war after retaliating against US military assets over ‘massive’ US-Israel strike

Aftermath of an Iran strike on the main headquarters of the US Navy’s 5th Fleet in Manama. Photo by Stringer/Anadolu via Getty Images.

Some European leaders similarly expressed concern about escalation while signaling their opposition to the Iran regime, the health of which is now in doubt.

French President Emmanuel Macron said that “the outbreak of war between the United States, Israel, and Iran carries grave consequences for international peace and security.”

Macron, presuming there is something left of Iran’s “Islamic regime,” suggested Tehran “now has no other option but to engage in good faith … negotiations to end its nuclear and ballistic programs.”

Espen Barth Eide, Norway’s foreign affairs minister, did not similarly balance his critical remarks about the strikes with criticism of Iran, suggesting instead that the initial strikes were unlawful.

“The attack is described by Israel as a pre-emptive strike, but it is not in accordance with international law. A pre-emptive attack would require the existence of an imminent threat,” said Eide.

Spain’s leftist prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, spoke scathingly of the strikes as well as of Iran’s retaliation, stating, “We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order.”

“We likewise reject the actions of the Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guard,” continued Sanchez. “We cannot afford another prolonged and devastating war in the Middle East.”

Russia, which recently held joint military exercises with Iran, went further in its condemnation of the strikes.

RELATED: U.S. and Israel launch ‘massive’ strikes against Iran: ‘We may have casualties’

Photo by Bedirhan Demirel/Anadolu via Getty Images

Mikhail Ulyanov, a Russian foreign services official, said in a statement shared by the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, “The new aggression of Israel and the US against Iran is fraught with the danger of significant deterioration and destabilisation in the Middle East.”

Dmitry Medvedev, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin and deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, stated, “The peacekeeper is at it again.”

“The talks with Iran were just a cover. Everyone knew that. So who has more patience to wait for the enemy’s sorry end now?” continued Medvedev. “The US is just 249 years old. The Persian Empire was founded over 2500 years ago. Let’s see what happens in 100 years or so.”

Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, the foreign minister of Cuba, an Iranian ally, referred to the attacks as “treacherous aggression,” adding, “These irresponsible actions undermine international peace and security, and constitute a clear transgression of International Law and the UN Charter.”

Communist China, which has in recent years developed a strong strategic partnership with Iran, was relatively quiet about the latest joint U.S.-Israeli strikes in West Asia. As of early Saturday morning, Beijing appears to have limited its public communications on the matter to words of caution to Chinese nationals in the region.

Saudi Arabia and other American strategic partners in the Middle East focused their ire on Iran.

The Saudi Foreign Affairs Ministry called “on the international community to condemn these blatant attacks and to take all firm measures necessary to confront Iranian violations that undermine the security and stability of the region.”

Qatar echoed Saudi Arabia, calling the Iranian strikes a “flagrant violation of its national sovereignty, a direct infringement on its security and territorial integrity, and an unacceptable escalation that threatens the security and stability of the region.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney avoided criticizing the attacks, noting instead, “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Geopolitics, Russia, Regime change, Iran, Donald trump, Europe, Qatar, Dubai, Foreign entanglement, Israel, Iran strikes, Attacks, War, Politics 

Once you burn your credibility, it’s hard to get back.

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger (D) deceived voters and concealed her true leftist agenda to win the governor’s mansion last year. Now she and her fellow Democrats are lying to Virginians about a new gerrymandered congressional district map they placed on the April 21 ballot as a constitutional amendment.

The new map ensures that most rural voters will be represented by people who live in Fairfax and were elected by voters in the DC suburbs.

It’s a naked attempt to make it impossible for Republicans to win election to Congress in most places in Virginia, and it’s why she was rewarded with the plum assignment of responding to President Trump’s State of the Union address this week.

The Virginia Supreme Court has already had one chance to stop the gerrymandering by upholding a judge’s ruling that Democrats cut legal corners to get the measure on the ballot. The justices, however, inexplicably chose to wait until the vote takes place.

I filed another lawsuit to bring new challenges, along with my Republican House colleague Morgan Griffith (Va.-9), the Republican National Committee, and the National Republican Congressional Committee. We won in circuit court, blocking the referendum again, so our Supreme Court will have another chance to do the right thing.

As we wait for a ruling, it’s important that people have the facts.

Spanberger masqueraded as a moderate in her campaign and won ceaseless praise from the media for her focus on “affordability.” But she dropped that as soon as she was sworn in and went right back to what she truly believes.

She returned Virginia to the multistate, radical environmental scheme that artificially raises electricity rates by $500 million every year. She’s currently considering a variety of tax increases proposed by Democrats in the Virginia legislature, including bumps in the sales and income tax, as well as taxes on everyday services like dog-walking and gym memberships. She has yet to rule out raising taxes on anything.

All of this is the opposite of what she ran on.

Now Spanberger and her Democrats have turned to stealing congressional seats. Naturally, they’re lying about that as well.

It’s nothing complicated. They’re taking Virginia’s current congressional district map, which produced six Democrats and five Republican members, and redrawing the lines to twist it into a 10-to-1 map in favor of Democrats.

Kamala Harris won here in the 2024 presidential race with less than 52% of the vote, but this map would award her party 91% of our congressional seats.

They’re assigning new federal representation to Virginians who didn’t ask for it, and there’s every likelihood that some of the lines were drawn to benefit specific Democrat politicians. One thing that’s certain is that no one was thinking of the well-being of voters when they hatched this plot.

As an example, take Fairfax County, vote-rich and dominated by Democrats in Northern Virginia outside Washington, D.C.

The new map carves Fairfax into five pieces and attaches them to districts that reach deep into Virginia’s rural regions. Picture the county as an octopus that has tentacles running throughout the state, and you’ll have an idea.

The configuration ensures that most rural voters will be represented by people who live in Fairfax and were elected by voters in the D.C. suburbs. It’s difficult to imagine what these groups might have in common geographically, culturally, or economically.

To top it off, just a few days ago, Democrats in the General Assembly decided they hadn’t cheated enough and twisted the screws even more to guarantee total victory in 10 of the 11 districts.

States usually redistrict following a census, but Democrats claim they must act now to balance Republican activities in other states. This excuse falls apart because most observers agree that Virginia’s new map is a particularly egregious example of partisan gerrymandering.

And Democrats lie when they talk about it.

RELATED: Democrats made Trump’s case for him Tuesday night

Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images

The party that told us that Joe Biden was mentally sharp now wants us to think a 10-1 congressional map promotes “fair elections,” as the advertising claims.

Democrats were even dishonest in the ballot question they wrote, which says it will temporarily “restore fairness” — without explanation or context — to elections in Virginia until the regular redistricting occurs in 2030.

We shouldn’t let politicians select their own voters, and Virginians were wise enough to see this coming.

Just six years ago, a whopping 66% of voters approved a constitutional amendment creating an independent redistricting commission. Unable to resist the lure of unchecked power, Virginia Democrats are trying to trick voters into undoing that so they can burgle those congressional seats.

National Democrats are paying attention.

House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has already sent $5 million to the campaign to support the new map and pledged to spend “whatever it takes” on top of that.

Democrats hilariously claim to be restoring fairness.

But a party powerful enough to ram this down everyone’s throat isn’t the victim of unfairness. It’s the cause of it.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Virginia, Virginia democrats, Gerrymandering, Abigail spanberger, Democrats, Republicans, Gerrymander, Partisan, Opinion & analysis, 2026 midterms 

Afforded a trifecta in November and no longer kept in check by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s vetoes, Democratic lawmakers in Virginia are poised to greatly limit gun rights in the state.

They are working to advance, for instance, a ban on the sale, purchase, manufacture, transfer, or importation of so-called “assault firearms” and magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds; a bill that would establish a five-day waiting period for all firearm sales; legislation that would impose an 11% tax on the purchase of any firearm or ammunition in the state; and a bill that would further limit where law-abiding Virginians can carry a gun.

‘Someone feels that they have the right to infringe upon this.’

The Second Amendment’s would-be curtailers in the General Assembly of Virginia — a state with the official motto Sic Semper Tyrannis, “Thus always to tyrants” — have a champion in Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D), who made clear on the campaign trail last year, “I will sign commonsense gun violence prevention bills.”

It turns out that Virginians are less than enthused about the Democratic regime’s gun agenda.

A survey conducted from Feb. 16 to 17 by Quantus Insights found that registered voters overwhelmingly oppose the legislative proposals now being considered in Richmond.

Eighty-four percent of respondents agreed that “the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution,” and 65% agreed with the statement that “gun control laws mainly make it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, while criminals ignore the laws anyway.”

RELATED: ‘Fake Moderate’ Democratic governor demands local police cut ties with ICE

Photographer: Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images

When asked about a ban “on commonly owned firearms labeled as ‘assault weapons,'” 60% of respondents signaled opposition. Only 33% said they would support such a ban.

Sixty percent of Democrats and 15% of Republicans said that they would support a ban.

When asked about a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds — a prohibition built into the Democratic bill passed by the state House in a 58-34 vote earlier this month — 58% of respondents signaled opposition.

An even greater percentage of respondents, 65%, said they opposed the proposed 11% state tax on firearms and ammunition.

Law enforcement leaders are among the loudest critics of the gun-control laws proposed by Democrats.

Amherst County Sheriff LJ Ayers, for instance, said in a video statement on Wednesday, “The Second Amendment grants us the right to bear arms — to protect ourselves, our homes, our property; to go with our children, our family, our friends out hunting, to enjoy God’s given nature — and someone feels that they have the right to infringe upon this.”

Ayers stressed that such efforts were “appalling” and emphasized that the Democratic legislation will only impact law-abiding citizens, not the criminals who’ll inevitably find workarounds.

WSET-TV reported that sheriffs in Campbell, Henry, Appomattox, and Bedford Counties have similarly spoken out against the proposed gun-control laws.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Democrats, Spanberger, Virginia, Guns, Second amendment, Constitution, Firearms, Right to bear, Gun control, Gun grab, Gun, Freedom, Politics 

Earlier this month, the Cato Institute — perhaps the most effective think tank advocating open borders — published a study claiming that since 1994, immigration has generated a whopping $14.5 trillion surplus in tax revenues over expenditures.

Critics quickly noted that Cato’s study uses a strange standard for judging immigration policy. For example, the study admits that immigration drives up housing prices by increasing demand, yet it still treats the resulting rise in property-tax payments from homeowners — citizens and noncitizens alike — as a benefit.

Who the ‘American people’ were in 1776 or 1787, or are in 2026, is a much-disputed question, but that does not exempt us from trying to answer it.

But perhaps more fundamental is the study’s idea of what should count as an expenditure on immigrants. It treats the educational and medical expenses of immigrants’ American-born children — all of whom Cato claims are “birthright citizens” — as expenditures on citizens rather than on immigrants. This is the same kind of sleight of hand we saw during COVID, when the rise in illness experienced after the first of two shots was counted as cases among the unvaccinated rather than the half-vaccinated.

Statistical games aside, such studies raise a far deeper question: To whose well-being, security, and liberty is the government of the United States directed? That is answered for us in the preamble to our fundamental law, the Constitution of 1787:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When I cited the preamble recently, the libertarian economist Glen Whitman replied that it is not binding law. Perhaps, but it is something more fundamental than law — it tells us what our laws should be trying to achieve.

Who the “American people” were in 1776 or 1787, or are in 2026, is a much-disputed question, but that does not exempt us from trying to answer it.

When John Rawls — the late political philosopher and the most influential liberal theorist of my generation — tried to explain how rational people should design society’s basic institutions, he did not treat civilization as nothing more than a collection of isolated individuals. In his famous “original position,” he argued that we should imagine ourselves not only as individuals but also as representatives of “continuing persons” — family heads, or stewards of enduring family lines.

This concept of continuing persons was Rawls’ clunky but effective mid-20th-century version of Gouverneur Morris’ more eloquent “ourselves and our posterity.” It does not seem crazy or racist — Rawls would have said it was reasonable — to think that immigration policy should be assessed from the perspective of current citizens and their descendants. In fact, that was how the historical Rawls claimed we should think about immigration, much to the surprise and dismay of his students and epigones.

On social media, we find the repeated cry that the so-called great replacement — the notion that elites are exchanging native populations for more tractable revenue producers — is a demagogic lie. After all, the open-borders pundits argue, more immigration doesn’t mean anybody is forced to leave.

RELATED: America has immigration laws — just not in these courtrooms

Cemile Bingol / Getty Images

But we are all forced to leave. Someday, each of us will be reunited with his or her fathers and mothers. Our descendants — the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren we leave behind in the country we made for them — are our posterity.

Another problem is that mass immigration not only increases the demand for housing, but it also suppresses the wage expectations of the native-born, particularly native-born men who are low-income workers. By increasing housing prices and reducing lifetime wages, mass immigration erodes the economic foundation required for family life, making fewer native-born men marriageable.

This decreases the fertility of the native-born. While an increasing share of children are born to unwed mothers, unwed parenting is sufficiently difficult that few such mothers have more than one child, and very few have more than two. Governments then trumpet studies like Cato’s to justify bringing in immigrants to support the aging natives who do not have enough of their own posterity to meet the fiscal need.

To paraphrase Charles de Gaulle, the graveyards are full of irreplaceable men. But if we want our graves to be tended and our memories to be revered by our posterity, we need to work now to ensure that immigration policy serves the welfare, security, and liberty of that posterity.

Those who continue the work of George Washington and the other founders by maintaining and passing on the union they built — stronger, more united, and free — may not be their blood relatives, but they can justly claim to be their spiritual progeny.

A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​Great replacement, Americans, Immigration, Illegal immigration, Homeland, Posterity, Citizens, John rawls, Opinion & analysis, Children, Families, Policies, Donald trump, Declaration of independence, Constitution 

The U.S. military struck Iran along with Israeli forces on Saturday morning and Iran lashed out with attacks on Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait.

President Donald Trump issued a national statement about the military operation dubbed “Operation Epic Fury” late Friday evening.

‘The Israeli Air Force is operating to intercept and strike threats where necessary to remove the threat.’

“The United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests,” Trump said. “We’re going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated.”

Sirens in Israel indicated that Iran launched a wave of missiles against the country but some reports said the effort was muted.

“A short while ago, sirens were sounded in several areas across the country following the identification of missiles launched from Iran toward the State of Israel,” read a statement from Israel. “At this time, the Israeli Air Force is operating to intercept and strike threats where necessary to remove the threat.”

The Ministry of the Interior in Bahrain ordered evacuations of some parts of the country, including Juffair.

The United Arab Emirates said that the strike from Iran violated their sovereignty and they reserved their right to respond.

Iran also launched missiles at the Al Udeid Air Base in Doha, Qatar, leading the country to condemn the attacks.

Loud explosions and warning sirens were reported in Kuwait near the U.S. Army base.

Several heavy explosions were also heard in the Saudi capital of Riyadh.

Fox News reported that the strikes targeted the Iranian Parliament, the National Supreme Council, the Ministry of Intelligence, as well as the Iranian Atomic Agency.

Russia also called for an immediate halt to the strikes on Iran and ordered all Russian citizens to leave Israel.

RELATED: Iran strike looms as Trump hosts Board of Peace

“To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces and all of the police,” Trump said in his speech. “I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity or in the alternative, face certain death.”

The regime in Iran has been facing political demonstrations from dissidents opposed to their totalitarian rule and some reports claim that tens of thousands have perished from the violent response.

Trump had warned Iran that if they killed protesters, the U.S. would “come to their rescue.”

It appears that he fulfilled that promise.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Us strike on iran, Israel strikes iran, Iran strikes back at the west, World war 3 after us strike, Politics