Five academics and former diplomats on U.S. strikes, Iran and stability
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Supreme Court upholds key Obamacare measure on preventive care
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a key provision of the Affordable Care Act. The vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s three liberal justices in the majority. At issue was a lawsuit that sought to undo the preventive care provision by challenging the appointment process for members of a 16-person task force that determines which preventive services are to be provided for free under insurance policies. Two lower courts found that the appointments were unconstitutional, but on Friday, the Supreme Court disagreed. The court’s decision on preventive care likely will protect other existing preventive services under ACA, including treatment for blood pressure screenings, birth control, breast and lung cancer screenings, immunizations, and more.”I cannot think of another health policy that impacts more Americans than the preventive services provision,” said Dr. Mark Fendrick, a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Michigan.
The vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s three liberal justices in the majority.
Siding with the government on Friday, the court upheld the Affordable Care Act, allowing the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to continue determining which services will be available free of cost to Americans covered by the Affordable Care Act.
At issue in the case was a lawsuit that sought to undo the preventive care provision by challenging the appointment process for members of a 16-person task force that determines which preventive services are to be provided for free under insurance policies. Two lower courts found that the appointments were unconstitutional, but on Friday, the Supreme Court disagreed.
More Supreme Court decisions from today:
More Supreme Court decisions today:
Writing for the court majority, Justice Kavanaugh said the Department of Health and Human Services has the power to appoint members of the task force.
“Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President, preserving the chain of command in Article II,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The ACA’s preventive treatments have benefited millions of people since the health care law went into effect 11 years ago — a sufficiently long time for most people to take the free coverage for granted. Activists argued that if the court ruled for the groups challenging the law, the benefits could disappear.
Friday’s case arose when the preventive care task force classified pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) drugs as essential to preventing HIV. Preventive PrEP coverage under the ACA includes not only HIV testing and medication, but also clinic visits and lab testing without added cost-sharing. Without ACA coverage, PrEP care would be astronomically expensive for most Americans.
The suit was brought by individuals and businesses with religious objections to the PrEP mandate—they claimed that providing PrEP coverage encourages “sexual behaviors and drug use” antithetical to their Christian beliefs.
Braidwood Management, the case’s named plaintiff, is led by Republican mega donor Steven Hotze who has referred to members of the LGBTQ+ community at different times as “morally degenerate,” “satanic,” and “termites.” Hotze, has challenged the ACA in at least two other federal lawsuits.
The court’s decision on preventive care likely will protect other existing preventive services under ACA, including treatment for blood pressure screenings, as well as birth control, breast and lung cancer screenings, immunizations, and more.
Prior to the court’s decision on Friday, proponents of the ACA’s existing preventive coverage had worried that without it, the financial burden of out-of-pocket expenses for these services would have discouraged people from getting care to prevent or detect disease at an early and treatable stage.
“I cannot think of another health policy that impacts more Americans than the preventive services provision,” said Dr. Mark Fendrick, a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Michigan.
Two lower courts in Texas found that the government violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because its task force members were appointed not by the president, but by the secretary of Health & Human Services.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, declaring that the task force was not composed of principal officers who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Rather, the court said, the advisory panel is composed of “inferior officers,” who may be appointed by a department head if that power is designated by Congress. Moreover, as the government pointed out in its briefs, the task force members are directly supervised by the HHS secretary, and members can be terminated at will.
Copyright 2025 NPR
Five academics and former diplomats on U.S. strikes, Iran and stability : NPR
Five academics and former diplomats on U.S. strikes, Iran and stability. Analyst: Only regime change in Iran can bring “peace and stability” Former Iranian diplomat: “They have never been after weapons. This is really a fake and manufactured narrative” Former intelligence officer: Iran’s military capabilities have been “severely degraded” “I hope Trump would go for a serious, sincere dialogue and would stop these zigzagging positions,” says Jonathan Panikoff, a former intelligence officer at the Scowcroft Security Initiative for the Middle East and North Africa. “I think the potential for diplomacy for Iran to reconsider its nuclear capabilities is very real,” says Hossein Mousavian, who took part in nuclear negotiations in the early 2000s. “The only long term answer to get peace and stability in the Mideast and around the world is to overthrow the ayatollahs,” says former Iranian official. “Because it is a non-nuclear weapon state, the IAEA is completely helpless,” he says.
toggle caption Jack Guez and Piroschka Van De Wouw/Pool/AFP, Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran/Getty Images
The U.S. military strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites have reignited long-standing debates over Washington’s strategy in the Middle East. While President Trump hailed the attacks as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, reactions from regional and international experts reveal a far more divided picture.
Shortly before the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and the war in Gaza, the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia were in the process of aligning more closely to counter Iran’s regional influence. But the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran marks a shift from shared strategic goals to the coordinated use of military force.
Sponsor Message
Analysts note that while diplomatic alignment has long existed on paper, the airstrikes signal a new phase of direct, operational collaboration.
From calls for regime change to warnings of legal overreach and diplomatic collapse, the strikes have exposed deep fractures in how policymakers and analysts view the path to security and stability in the region.
To understand these competing visions, before and after the ceasefire currently in place between Israel and Iran, NPR’s Morning Edition spoke to five academics and former diplomats with expertise on diplomacy and the region about what the attacks achieved, what they jeopardized, and what the future might now hold for diplomacy in the Middle East.
Here’s what they said:
Only regime change in Iran can bring “peace and stability,” according to John Bolton
Bolton, who served as national security adviser in Trump’s first term and as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said he “wouldn’t have terminated the air campaign as soon as Trump did,” and would’ve wanted to see Iran placed under intense surveillance.
Destroying Iran’s nuclear program, he said, requires “breaking the links” in nuclear production and for now he’s satisfied with the “enormous damage” from these strikes.
Sponsor Message
“The effort to destroy a complex program involves breaking the links in the nuclear fuel cycle at multiple points so that it is ultimately a project of years to put it back together. That’s why I’m happy,” he said. “I’ve been spending a long time emphasizing the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. It was another key link in the process. It has been destroyed.”
Bolton says there’s no contradiction in Trump’s actions, noting, “He kind of zigged into doing the right thing, and he zagged back out by terminating it too early. He’ll probably zig and zag for the next six or eight months — that’s just how he is. He doesn’t have a national security strategy.”
Ultimately, though, he said the “only long term answer to get peace and stability in the Middle East and around the world is to overthrow the ayatollahs.”
Only way forward may be direct U.S.-Iran negotiations, former Iranian official says
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian diplomat who took part in nuclear negotiations in the early 2000s, highlights the unprecedented nature of the recent attack: Iran was targeted by two nuclear states without the approval of the UN Security Council. He believes the strikes were counterproductive.
“What could be worse than this? How can Iran trust?” Hossein Mousavian said.
On the question of nuclear weapons in Iran, Mousavian suggests it’s a game of narrative and rhetoric used as a cover to justify military actions and regime change: “They have never been after weapons. This is really a fake and manufactured narrative, like what the narrative they made in order to attack Iraq.”
Like Bolton, he sees a constantly shifting approach from Trump, but he believes that direct negotiations are the only way forward.
“I have proposed there is a need for direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S. I mean, I really don’t see any other way because [the International Atomic Energy Agency] proved it is completely helpless,” Hossein Mousavian said. “Because by the charter of the IAEA, if a nuclear weapon state is attacking a non-nuclear weapon state, this agency should come to support the non-nuclear weapon state. But they did nothing. I hope President Trump would go for a serious, sincere, comprehensive dialogue and would stop these zigzagging positions.”
Diminished nuclear capabilities may force Iran to reconsider options domestically and with allies, a think-tank analyst says
Jonathan Panikoff, a former intelligence officer who now directs the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council, says Iran’s military capabilities have been “severely degraded.” He sees the potential for diplomacy, possibly mediated by Oman, Norway or Switzerland.
“I think that pathway exists, but I think it’s going to take quite a lot of cajoling over the coming, frankly, weeks and months,” Panikoff says. “You could even imagine, potentially, an outside actor like China trying to convince the Iranians to come back.”
Sponsor Message
Faced with internal struggles, Iran also now faces a new choice, he notes: “Will it reinvest billions of dollars to rebuild those entities at a time when its economy is struggling, which could lead to even further internal strife? Or will it try a different path, rebuilding some defenses over time, but not reestablishing the same proxy network [of regional military groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza] or nuclear program that has long been a broad threat to the region, including Arab Gulf states?”
The latest U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran push boundaries of international law, Middle East expert says
Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar at Johns Hopkins University, notes that U.S. and Israeli military actions in Iran signal that the countries are willing to bypass diplomatic norms and could reshape security perceptions among countries in the region.
He says, “The regime is still standing,” and emphasizes that “the signal here is that the United States and Israel are willing and capable to settle all issues militarily and that international law, rules, diplomacy, et cetera, won’t stand in their way.”
Nasr warns this approach will “have a chilling impact on all countries in the region, be it their enemies or allies,” fundamentally changing how security is perceived beyond Iran and Israel.
Israel exaggerates nuclear threat and war doesn’t spare civilians, Iranian academic says
Setareh Sadeqi, a professor at the University of Tehran’s Faculty of World Studies, says Israel’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program are greatly exaggerated. Sadeqi says that war harms everyone, including innocent civilians.
Sadeqi dismisses Israel’s long-standing claim that Iran is “one month away” from nuclear capability, arguing, “While I totally disagree with nuclear weapons, I think if Israel, Pakistan, India, the U.S., France, and other countries have the right to have nuclear weapons, then any other country should also have it, and Iran does not have one.”
Sponsor Message
When asked if she thinks Iran is innocent, she says: “And you’re saying that Iran has called for the elimination of the state of Israel. Iran has never called for the elimination of a people, but an occupying regime that has stolen land from others and has been a colonial project of the Zionist entity. Many, including the international community, hold it responsible for the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and Lebanese.”
The Israeli government denies accusations of genocide.
Despite the rising tensions, Sadeqi said that normal life in Tehran continues. “And when war starts, it does not distinguish between pro-government and anti-government citizens. It kills everyone. That’s what Israel has been doing,” she said.
This piece was edited for digital by Obed Manuel and James Hider. The Morning Edition team, including Adam Bearne, Olivia Hampton and Mo Elbardicy, edited the expert interviews for radio.
Supreme Court postpones Louisiana redistricting case to next term
The U.S. Supreme Court says it will reargue Louisiana’s congressional redistricting plan in its next term. At issue is the Louisiana legislature’s creation of a Black-majority congressional district. A group of voters sued, arguing that the state legislature had unconstitutionally relied on race in drawing new congressional district lines. The state legislature, after losing before multiple courts, drew a new map that provided for a second majority-Black district.
At issue is the Louisiana legislature’s creation of a Black-majority congressional district. A group of voters sued, arguing that the state legislature had unconstitutionally relied on race in drawing new congressional district lines.
Louisiana’s population is roughly one-third Black. But after the 2020 Census, the state legislature drew new congressional district lines that provided for only one majority-Black district in a state that has six congressional seats. That’s the same thing that Alabama did after the 2020 Census, only to be slapped down by the Supreme Court two years ago when a narrow court majority ruled that the state had illegally diluted the Black vote in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
In the wake of that decision, the Louisiana legislature, after losing before multiple courts, saw the handwriting on the wall and drew a new map that provided for a second majority-Black district. But in redrawing the district lines, the Republican-controlled legislature also sought to protect safe seats for two important GOP lawmakers, Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
Enter a group of voters identifying themselves as “non-African-American voters,” who objected to the redistricting as a racial gerrymander.
In oral arguments earlier this year, Louisiana’s lawyer told the high court that simply was not the case. It was an old-fashioned political gerrymander, he said, adding, “We’re talking about the Speaker of the House. No rational state gambles with those high-stakes seats.”
More Supreme Court decisions today:
Copyright 2025 NPR
U.S. Marine veteran says father’s violent arrest by immigration agents was ‘inhumane’
Marine veteran Alejandro Barranco’s father, Narciso, was punched in the head and neck during a workplace raid. Alejandro, a 25-year-old U.S. Marine veteran, said the agents’ actions were “unprofessional and uncalled for” Alejandro said his father, who worked as a landscaper, has lived in the United States since the ’90s without legal status. He and his brothers were exploring how to begin adjusting their father’s immigration status through a program called parole in place, which is available to immediate relatives of military members. “I don’t think it represents our law enforcement officers, anything like that. I was really, really mad when I saw that,” Alejandro says of his father’s treatment by federal agents in a now-viral video. “He was always trying to provide for us, make sure we are well fed, dressed, a roof over our heads, it’s clear that his priorities were to give back to the country in this way,” he says.
Alejandro Barranco threw his phone to the ground after watching how a masked federal immigration agent repeatedly punched his father in the head and neck during a workplace raid.
The scene in Santa Ana, Calif. was captured in a now-viral video that shows Alejandro’s father, Narciso Barranco, pinned to the floor by three federal agents on June 21. In the video, Barranco does not appear to be resisting arrest when the agent strikes him.
“Hey! Why are you hitting him?” a bystander can be heard yelling at the agents.
Alejandro, a 25-year-old U.S. Marine veteran whose two younger brothers are active duty Marines, said in an interview with Morning Edition that the agents’ actions were “unprofessional and uncalled for.”
“I don’t think it represents our law enforcement officers, anything like that. I was really, really mad when I saw that. I couldn’t believe it,” Alejandro added. “The way they treated him, like, so inhumane.”
Alejandro said his father, who worked as a landscaper, has lived in the U.S. since the ’90s without legal status, but added that he has no criminal record. He and his brothers were exploring how to begin adjusting their father’s immigration status through a program called parole in place, which is available to immediate relatives of military members. He noted that financial constraints and work schedules had hampered their efforts to do so.
In an emailed statement, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Narciso ran from agents, “swung a weed whacker” at an agent’s face and refused to comply with officers’ commands. “The agents took appropriate action and followed their training to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve the situation in a manner that prioritizes the safety of the public and our officers,” the statement continued.
Speaking with NPR’s A Martínez, Alejandro discussed how he felt when he first saw the video, defended his father against DHS’ claims and unpacked how he feels knowing the country that he and his brothers served could deport their father.
Interview highlights
A Martínez: Now, the Department of Homeland Security has said on social media that your father, “assaulted federal law enforcement with a weed whacker.” And then Customs and Border Protection posted on X a video of what looks like a person swinging a weed whacker at agents. What do you make of that characterization? Does that sound like something your father would do?
Alejandro Barranco: No, no, of course not. And the movement you see from the weed whacker, I think, is a natural instinct, because he gets sprayed seconds before that, I think it was just his own body, his own instincts, just reacting to that spray.
Martínez: He was sprayed with what?
Barranco: I’m not sure what it was. Mace. Pepper spray. I don’t know.
Martínez: How’s he doing? Has he been able to process everything that’s happened?
Barranco: I don’t think so. I mean, when he called this morning, he was scared and said that they were moving him. He didn’t know why. I mean, all of this is new to him, obviously it’s just… I can only imagine how he feels right now.
Martínez: How long has your father been in the United States?
Barranco: Since the ’90s. I want to say at least 30 years.
Martínez: Well, what would you say to someone that says, hey, if you’ve been in this country for decades, you should have found the time to make sure that something like this eventually wouldn’t happen?
Barranco: Yeah, no, I understand that people might think that way, but they also need to understand that everybody’s situation is different. My dad worked Monday to Sunday. He was always trying to provide for us, make sure we are well fed, well dressed, provide a roof over our heads. It’s clear that his priorities were us so that we can also give back to this country in this way, the way we serve.
Martínez: Did you have any conversations with him or maybe other members of your family about what was happening in the LA area with ICE and the possibility, maybe, that your father might be arrested?
Barranco: We knew these things were happening, these raids were going on. We prepared him. We told him, ‘Keep calm. Let them identify themselves. Don’t say anything. Don’t sign anything. Don’t fight back.’ He knew these things were happening and he accepted the fact that it could happen. But what we weren’t prepared for and didn’t prep him about was these guys attacking him. We never expected anything like that. We expected these guys to act professionally and up to standards on the United States government.
Martínez: Considering your brothers are active duty Marines, if they are deployed somehow, somewhere in the world to fight for the United States of America, have you figured out how you might square those feelings of putting your life on the line for a country that has done this to a family member?
Barranco: They know their orders and they know they’re supposed to follow orders. And when you’re in a situation like that, I do believe you’re fighting for those people next to you, not necessarily the country.
Martínez: What do you think about the Trump administration’s approach to people without legal status in the U.S. generally?
Barranco: I’m not sure they have the right picture because — I’m not too involved in politics — but I believe the administration said that they were going after criminals. And from what we’ve seen, I think it’s the complete opposite. I think the majority of people that are getting are hardworking people who have been here for decades, providing for their family and providing for this country.
Martínez: Any idea about what comes next for your father?
Barranco: First and foremost, we want to get him out of there. After that, we’ll work on his legal status. But for now, we do want him home.
The radio version of this story was edited by Lisa Thomson and produced by Claire Murashima. It was edited for digital by Treye Green.
Copyright 2025 NPR
SCOTUS: Parents can opt kids out of classes with LGBTQ book characters
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of parents who wanted to opt out of certain classes. The case involved a school in Montgomery County, Maryland. The school board wanted to allow students to choose not to learn about same-sex marriage. The court said the school board’s decision violated the parents’ right to freedom of speech and expression. The ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which also ruled in the case. The decision is expected in the next few weeks, if not sooner. The U.N. secretary-general has called for a change in the law to allow parents to opt in.
Wading into another culture clash, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that school systems, for now, are required to provide parents with an “opt-out” provision that excuses their children from class when course material conflicts with their religious beliefs.
The vote was 6-3, along ideological lines.
The court’s decision has, for months, had public school boards, administrators, and teachers worried about how to navigate opt-out demands of all kinds—from courses that include LGBTQ characters in books to science classes that teach Darwin’s theory of evolution.
At the center of Friday’s case was the Montgomery County, Md., school system, the most religiously diverse county in the nation, with 160,000 students of nearly all faiths. A group of parents sued the school board, seeking to opt their elementary school children out of classes when the reading material included books with LGBTQ characters. The parents argued that without an opt-out provision, their First Amendment religious freedoms were violated.
More Supreme Court decisions today:
Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito agreed, saying parents challenging the board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, are allowed to excuse their children from the classes related to the books while the litigation proceeds.
“The parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise,” Alito wrote. He said the storybooks conveyed a “normative message” that seeks to separate gender from biological sex, contrary to their parents’ religious beliefs.
Writing for the three liberal justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the majority of seeking to insulate children from the United States’ multicultural society in its public schools, something that is “critical to our Nation’s civic vitality.”
“Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs,” she wrote.
The school board, backed by other parents, had argued that opt-out provisions were impractical. The board noted that it initially allowed parents to opt their children out of select lesson plans. But, the school system removed the opt-out provision when accommodating requests became too difficult and disruptive to class time. The board argued that while it is easy enough to facilitate single-class opt-outs, as the school district provides for sex education, it is much more challenging to take children from the classroom every time that a book mentions same sex parents or gay and lesbian kids.
But parents objecting to the storybooks maintained that the Supreme Court has long held that parents should be in charge of value-setting for their children and that forcing children to read LGBTQ-friendly storybooks, against their parents’ wishes, violated families’ First Amendment rights to religious freedoms.
Copyright 2025 NPR