
Did Israel Just 'Blow Up' Trump's Bid For an Iran Nuke Deal?
The attack had been predicted for weeks, but over the last few days, the chatter was taken seriously enough that the U.S. ordered non-essential diplomatic personnel to evacuate the region. By the time the Israeli military finally struck Iran on Thursday evening — early Friday morning in Tehran — the U.S. and Iran were just three days out from a sixth round of scheduled nuclear talks in Muscat, Oman.
With the bombs dropped, questions hung in the air. How fierce would Iran's promised response be? Did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aim to scuttle the nuclear talks? President Donald Trump had been pursuing hard-nosed diplomacy with Iran, but did he even try to stop Israel?
In what it deemed a 'preemptive strike,' the Israeli military claimed to target Iran's nuclear sites, like the one in Natanz, its ballistic missile program, nuclear scientists, and senior military officials. Among them was armed forces Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, who was initially rumored to be dead but is apparently safe.
Given that Iran had neither shown any preparations for an attack on Israel nor made any military threats against it, the preemptive strike was certainly illegal under international law—not that Netanyahu has shown any particular concern for such niceties. Netanyahu said the operation will continue. That, presumably, means war.
Whatever damage Iran sustained in the overnight attack, Netanyahu stated in a speech that the operation targeting Iran's nuclear program will continue until he is satisfied that the threat it presents is eliminated. That, presumably, means war — one that will be increasingly difficult for the U.S. to stay out of, especially when it comes to defending Israel in the face of Iranian retaliation.
At this early hour exact casualty numbers from the strikes are not known, but images coming out of Tehran show multiple residential buildings damaged and explosions across the capitol city.
Several prominent figures in Iranian military, nuclear, and academic circles have been confirmed killed. The chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, was among them, as were Azad University president Mohammad Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist; Fereydoon Abbasi, a politician and former head of the Atomic Energy Organization; and Gen. Gholamali Rashid, commander of Khatam-al Anbiya Central Headquarters, Iran's unified military command.
Ahead of the attack, Israel telegraphed its plans through leaks to the media — and Trump faced questions from a reporter on Thursday about the possibility. The president suggested a strike could happen at any time, though he maintained that he preferred diplomacy. It seems clear enough from Trump's response that, while the U.S. may not have given Netanyahu a green light to attack, it didn't demand that it refrain from doing so.
Tellingly, in his answer to the reporter, Trump said that an attack by Israel could 'blow up' the scheduled talks between U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but added that an attack may also be helpful.
Presumably, Trump thought an attack might give the U.S. more leverage over a weakened and chastened Iran. It's impossible to know if Trump came up with the notion himself, or if it came out of the meeting on the Iran nuclear issue he held with his foreign policy team at Camp David on Sunday.
Regardless, if meant seriously, the idea showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran, which is even less likely to compromise on its nuclear program than it might have been before the attack.
Netanyahu may just have a better grasp on the Iranians than the Trump administration. It seems likely that the Israeli leader chose to attack Iran not to give Trump and Witkoff more leverage, but to put an end to the talks once and for all.
Taken aback by Trump's announcement earlier this year that the U.S. would begin direct talks with Iran, Netanyahu has seemed determined since then to scupper the possibility of a new nuclear agreement.
Netanyahu, echoed by Israel's staunchest supporters in Congress, demanded the talks result in a complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program — which he is well aware was a non-starter for Iran — or threatening military action if the talks didn't accomplish his goal.
The Israeli strike, in the end, could have more far-reaching consequences, scuttling not just the talks themselves, but any chance of an entente between the U.S. and Iran.
In that sense, Netanyahu has succeeded. Even if talks continue, the idea Trump once had for a 'successful' Iran — at peace and integrated into the world economy — is today certainly blown up.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNBC
13 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump advisor Peter Navarro slams India's ‘opportunistic' purchases of Russian crude
U.S. President Donald Trump's trade advisor Peter Navarro on Monday called on India to stop buying Russian crude oil, accusing the Asian giant of undermining international efforts to isolate Vladimir Putin's war economy. Writing in in the Financial Times, Navarro described India's dependence on Russian oil as "opportunistic," adding that if India "wants to be treated as a strategic partner of the US, it needs to start acting like one." "In effect, India acts as a global clearinghouse for Russian oil, converting embargoed crude into high-value exports while giving Moscow the dollars it needs," Navarro said in the op-ed. His comments come shortly after trade negotiations between the U.S. and India, which had been scheduled to take place in New Delhi later this month, were reportedly called off. India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and the Office of the U.S Trade Representative did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comments. Earlier this month, the Trump administration said it planned to impose an additional 25% tariff on India over Russian oil purchases, bringing the total levies against the country to 50%. The cumulative rate of duties on India is among the highest on any of Washington's trade partners. India described the move as "extremely unfortunate" at the time, saying the tariffs were "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable." The White House has since warned that secondary levies on India could increase further, depending on the outcome of Trump's peace talks with Putin. For its part, India has said it has been unfairly targeted for its continuing trade with Russia since Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, amid criticism from both the U.S. and European Union. In a statement published Aug. 4, India's Ministry of External Affairs said the country began importing from Russian because traditional supplies were diverted from Europe after the outbreak of the conflict. "India's imports are meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer. They are a necessity compelled by global market situation," India's Ministry of External Affairs said. "However, it is revealing that the very nations criticizing India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia. Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion," it added. Trump's criticism of India's oil trade with Russia represents a clear shift from the Biden administration, which, along with other G7 nations, Australia and the European Union, established a $60 a barrel price cap in late 2022. The EU has since signaled it has reached an agreement to lower the price threshold. This mechanism sought to limit Russia's revenue from oil sales, while maintaining some stability in global energy markets. Shilan Shah, deputy chief emerging markets economist at Capital Economics, said India could, in principle, find suppliers other than Russia to meet its energy needs "relatively easily," with limited economic impact. "But we doubt that India would make a wholehearted effort to wean itself off Russian oil. Domestically, it would not play well to be seen caving to Trump's demands," Shah said in a note published Aug. 4. "In addition, Indian policymakers would be reluctant to upend generally cordial (and long-standing) relations with Russia," he added.


Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's New Census Could Be Bad News for Texas
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's proposal for a new national census that excludes people living in the United States illegally could reduce Texas' political power by reducing both its number of Electoral College votes and seats in the House of Representatives. Why It Matters The Trump administration is pushing for a new census despite the next one not being due until 2030. Excluding those in the U.S. illegally from the figures would reduce the political representation of states with disproportionately high illegal migrant populations, such as California and Texas. Citing "two people with knowledge of the effort," The Texas Tribune reported that the administration's primary goal behind the new census was to boost Republicans politically, though some experts have expressed skepticism over whether this would happen. What To Know On August 7, Trump said he had instructed the Department of Commerce to begin work on a new national census that would exclude illegal migrants, using data from the 2024 presidential election as a baseline. Census Bureau data is used to determine how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives and also how many Electoral College votes it gets during presidential elections. So if a state loses population disproportionately once illegal migrants are excluded, it would see its political influence decrease. In 2024, the Department of Homeland Security estimated that in January 2022 there were 10,990,000 people residing in the U.S. illegally. It found that California had the largest illegal migrant population with 2,600,000 people, followed by Texas with 2,060,000, Florida with 590,000 and New Jersey with 490,000. Speaking with Newsweek, Joshua Blank, who heads the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, said a new census without illegal migrants would reduce the state's population and therefore its House representation. He added that Texas "did nothing to promote census participation" in 2020. President Donald Trump's census proposal could see Texas lose Electoral College votes and seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. President Donald Trump's census proposal could see Texas lose Electoral College votes and seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Associated Press/Canva Blank said: "While, ostensibly, this move would reduce Texas' population size for the purpose of congressional districts, it's probably the case that it's less than it would if Texas were to have engaged in a serious effort to get a good count in the first place." In terms of the nationwide political effect, Blank added: "This would apply to other states, including other states with large immigrant populations, and those that actually sought to get an accurate count, like California. So the overall exchange of seats, since the number of overall congressional seats remains fixed, is pretty hard to game out." Trump's new census plan would almost certainly face legal challenges, with critics arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment, which states that seats in the House should be based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State." What People Are Saying Gil Guerra, an immigration policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, told Newsweek: "These numbers matter enormously for apportionment—states like California, Texas, and Florida have substantial undocumented populations that currently contribute to their congressional representation." Speaking with The Texas Tribune about the president's new census proposal, Robert Warren, a demographer at the Center for Migration Studies, said: "It wouldn't shift enough [House] seats to make any difference, and that's been true for five straight censuses." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on August 7: "I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024. People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" A Department of Commerce spokesperson told Newsweek: "The Census Bureau will immediately adopt modern technology tools for use in the Census to better understand our robust Census data. We will accurately analyze the data to reflect the number of legal residents in the United States." What Happens Next If Trump pushes ahead with his plan, it will almost inevitably spark a major legal battle. Even if the courts approve, experts agree that the overall effect on American politics is hard to determine, though states with a high illegal migrant population—such as Texas—will likely lose some influence.


New York Post
42 minutes ago
- New York Post
Marco Rubio accuses CBS reporter of pushing ‘stupid media narrative' in fiery clash over Zelensky
Advertisement Secretary of State Marco Rubio clashed with 'Face the Nation' host Margaret Brennan, accusing her of pushing a 'stupid media narrative' during a fierce exchange on Sunday. 'You know there is concern from the Europeans that President Zelensky is going to be bullied into signing something away. That's why you have these European leaders coming as backup tomorrow,' Brennan said before being cut off. 'That is not true,' Rubio interjected, as the two spoke over each other. 'But that's not true, they're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelensky from being bullied.' Advertisement President Donald Trump recently hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska for a highly anticipated summit focused on ending the war in Ukraine. 3 Secretary of State Marco Rubio clashed with 'Face the Nation' host Margaret Brennan, accusing her of pushing a 'stupid media narrative' during a fierce exchange on Sunday. CBS/Face the Nation The conflict, which began with Russia's full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, has resulted in an estimated two million casualties, including both military and civilian losses on both sides. Putin previously seized Crimea and backed Russian separatists in 2014. Trump has been working to secure a ceasefire in the war, often claiming it would never have broken out had he been president, and vowing he'd end the conflict on 'day one' during his campaign. Advertisement The presidents failed to secure a ceasefire during the summit. However, both sides said they made good progress and planned to meet again. Trump scheduled a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday, with other European heads of state, to discuss what was agreed to at the summit and determine next steps. Trump has signaled his intention to schedule a trilateral meeting involving himself, Putin, and Zelensky, or at least get the two warring leaders in the same room to negotiate an ultimate deal. Advertisement Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, said the concessions made at the summit were substantial, particularly regarding Ukrainian security guarantees. 3 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky talks to media prior a virtual meeting with EU leaders in the Berlaymont, the EU Commission headquarter on Aug. 17, 2025 in Brussels, Belgium. Getty Images 'We agreed on much more robust security guarantees, the Russians agreed on enshrining legislatively language that they would attest to not attempting to take any more land from Ukraine after a peace deal, where they would attest to not violating any European borders,' Witkoff said. Brennan pressed Rubio over the contentious Oval Office meeting between Trump, Zelensky and Vice President J.D. Vance, where the Ukrainian leader was 'dressed down' after he openly mocked the idea of negotiation with Putin. 'What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are [sic] speaking about?' Zelensky asked, triggering a total meltdown between the three leaders. 3 Brennan pressed Rubio over the contentious Oval Office meeting between Trump, Zelensky, and Vice President J.D. Vance, where the Ukrainian leader was 'dressed down' after he openly mocked the idea of negotiation with Putin. CBS/Face the Nation 'We gave you, through this stupid president, $350 billion. We gave you military equipment… If you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks… you don't have the cards,' Trump fired back. The conversation ended with Zelensky leaving Washington, D.C. early and an expected minerals deal not being signed — though it was later ratified. Advertisement Rubio, continuing to talk over Brennan, rejected the idea that Zelensky needed protection from being bullied and insisted that the White House and their Ukrainian counterparts have had dozens of meetings since the infamous meeting. 'We had one meeting with Putin and like a dozen meetings with Zelensky… They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelensky from being bullied. They are coming here because we've been working with the Europeans. We talked to them last week… The President talked to these leaders as early as Thursday… This is such a stupid media narrative,' Rubio said.