'Trump's warning to Iran ought to be taken seriously'
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday demanded "unconditional surrender" from Tehran and warned the United States could easily assassinate its supreme leader as Iran and US ally Israel traded devastating fire for a fifth day.The comments fueled questions over whether Washington will join Israel's attacks after insisting it had no hand in the campaign.Days after a senior US official said Trump had told Israel to back down from plans to assassinate top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the US president appeared to reverse course."We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now," Trump said on his Truth Social platform.Warning Iran against targeting US interests, he also posted, "But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin," he added, later posting a message saying: "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"Trump and his National Security Council met on Tuesday to discuss the conflict, ending after an hour and 20 minutes with no immediate public statement.RTHK's Washington correspondent, Simon Marks, said Trump's latest remarks should be taken seriously."Donald Trump is on a journey, clearly, from a position where he wanted to suggest to the rest of the world that the United States was uninvolved, to a situation where now he is reportedly poised to become absolutely mired in this military operation by supplying the Israelis with the go-ahead to use those American bunker-busting bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities," he told RTHK's Hong Kong Today programme "And while it is evident that Donald Trump has largely extemporised on this issue over the last five or six days, he now puts himself in a position where he's trying to portray himself as the central figure in all of this."Marks added there was was a split among Trump's supporters on whether the US should get involved."Donald Trump is very much indicating through all of his actions that he sides with the former group, the group that believes there is a vital national security interest here for the United States and that it needs completely to eradicate any prospect of Iran developing a nuclear capability." (Additional reporting by AFP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Why the AUKUS dream is likely to die
The first clear sign the Trump administration was taking a long hard look at AUKUS came two weeks ago, when US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth gave his first major speech on US strategic policy in Asia at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. In a long presentation that catalogued a host of initiatives with America's Asian allies, AUKUS was not mentioned once. This was noteworthy because under the Biden administration, AUKUS was the poster child for US military engagement in the region, name-checked at every opportunity. Now we understand why. The Pentagon's review of AUKUS, announced last week, marks the first time any of the three partners – the US, United Kingdom and Australia – has tested the AUKUS dream against hard military and strategic realities. It is unlikely to survive. AUKUS was always a long shot, right from the start. That was clear from the moment, back in September 2021, that then prime minister, Scott Morrison, sprung the dream of an Australian nuclear-powered submarine force on an astonished public. For that dream to be realized, a lot of things would have to go right, and most of them were much more likely to go wrong. But the flaw that now looks set to kill the AUKUS dream is one that was not part of the original plan. The way Morrison and his then-defense minister, Peter Dutton, originally conceived it, there would be no need for Australia to acquire US-built Virginia-class subs in the 2030s before taking delivery of Australian-built subs to replace the Collins-class boats. They were confident that new subs built in Australia, almost certainly to a British design, could be delivered fast enough to enter service as the old Collins subs were being retired, ensuring no gap in our capability. It only became clear this was not going to work out after Labor took office in 2022, as the new government tried to turn Morrison's vague idea into a viable project. It soon found there was simply no way to bring new Australian-built nuclear subs into service until long after the Collins boats had to be retired. To save the AUKUS dream, it was necessary to fill the gap between the retirement of the Collins and the delivery of the first of what we now know as the UK-designed, Australian-built SSN-AUKUS class of submarine. That was when the idea of Australia getting ex-US Navy Virginia-class boats first surfaced. It was a desperate measure that vastly increased the already formidable risks of the whole AUKUS idea. One reason is that it meant the Royal Australian Navy had the almost impossible task of managing and operating not one but two very different kinds of nuclear submarine, powered by two very different nuclear power plants. For a navy that has struggled to keep the much simpler Collins subs at sea, the task of operating just one class of nuclear-powered subs was truly formidable. To expect it to effectively operate two quite different classes of nuclear submarines simultaneously was, frankly, absurd. But there is another reason why the decision to buy Virginia subs to cover the capability gap undermined the viability of the whole AUKUS plan. Very simply, the US has no submarines to spare. The facilities and workforce that build and maintain its submarines have never recovered from the savage cuts imposed in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War. No serious steps were taken to rebuild it even after it became clear China had become a formidable new maritime rival. The result is that America's two submarine construction yards have for many years been delivering barely half as many Virginia-class subs as the Pentagon now says America needs – around 1.2 per year instead of two per year. This problem was acknowledged when the AUKUS partners announced the detailed plan in 2023. It was optimistically claimed that everything necessary would be done to increase production to the level of 2.3 subs a year required to meet US needs and provide extra boats for Australia. So far, there is no sign of that happening. Elbridge Colby, the senior US official conducting the Pentagon's AUKUS review, will almost certainly puncture the irresponsible optimism around this crucial issue and make it clear that unless there is a miracle in US submarine production, America will not be selling any Virginia-class subs to Australia. But that's not all. Even if that miracle is achieved, US leaders and officials still have to ask whether it makes sense for America to pass the extra submarines to Australia rather than bring them into service with the US Navy. Any subs sold to Australia weaken America at a time when it is already struggling to match China's fast-growing navy. So it has always been clear that Washington will only sell us its submarines if it is absolutely certain Australia would commit them to fight if the US goes to war with China. The Albanese government has never acknowledged it is willing to make that commitment. The Biden administration, desperate for its own reasons to keep the AUKUS dream alive, did not press Canberra on this very sensitive point. The Trump administration will be much tougher. Colby's review will also certainly conclude that America should not sell Virginia-class subs to Australia, unless Canberra offers much clearer and more public guarantees that Australia will go to war with China if the US ever does. For Canberra, this could well be a deal-breaker, marking the end of the AUKUS dream. It certainly should be. Hugh White's new Quarterly Essay, Hard New World: Our Post-American Future, is published this month. Hugh White is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump's Iran options: stealth bombers, warships and a ‘bunker buster'
US President Donald Trump has a wide range of military assets in the Middle East and across the globe to bring to bear in a potential fight against Iran as he weighs one of the most momentous foreign policy decisions of his administration. Advertisement That arsenal includes powerfully destructive bombs, long-range stealth bombers, an aircraft carrier strike group, US Navy destroyers and US troops - offering Trump multiple options if he decides to intervene more directly in support of Israel. Some resources like the B-2 bomber are in the US while other assets are either in the region or on the way. It was unclear whether Trump will deepen US involvement beyond helping Israel defend against Iranian air attacks as he has done in recent days. On Tuesday afternoon, the president gathered his national security staff for a White House Situation Room meeting. The administration, though, has been surging military resources to US Central Command, which oversees the Pentagon's operations in the region. And forces already in the area include naval and air power that could play a crucial role in any US action against Iran. A mock-up of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Photo: US Air Force via AFP The Islamic Republic has already suffered its worst assault in decades, with Israel's strikes on the country's nuclear and military infrastructure damaging key facilities and killing senior personnel. One weapon, though, is seen as particularly effective if the situation were to escalate and draw the direct involvement of the US.
South China Morning Post
4 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump dismisses US intelligence that Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon
Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran's nuclear programme earlier this year. The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorised the dormant programme even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels. But US President Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of US spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. 'I don't care what she said,' Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was 'very close' to having a nuclear bomb. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Photo: EPA-EFE Trump's statement aligned him more closely with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has described a nuclear-armed Iran as an imminent threat, than with his own top intelligence adviser. Trump met with national security officials, including Gabbard, in the Situation Room on Tuesday as he plans next steps.
