Iran's Supreme Leader Challenges Trump
A fierce war of words has erupted between Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and U.S. President Donald Trump following recent U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
On his official X account, Khamenei accused Trump of "exaggerating in order to cover up and conceal the truth," directly responding to Trump's claim that the U.S. had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites. The post also pushed back against Trump's earlier boast that he spared the ayatollah's life during the recent Iran-Israel conflict.
Separately, Trump declared on Truth Social that he is offering Iran "nothing" and is refusing to engage with Iranian officials, signaling a hardening U.S. stance. The escalating online clash raises concerns about the risk of renewed conflict between Washington and Tehran.
Newsweek has reached out the State Department and Iran's foreign ministry for comment.
The sharp exchange follows a 12-day Israel-Iran war that ended under a fragile U.S.-brokered ceasefire. During the conflict, the U.S. carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites-an unprecedented escalation that has fueled uncertainty. Within both Washington and Tehran, officials remain divided on the strikes' effectiveness. Some U.S. leaders say the damage was severe, while others express doubts. Iran publicly minimizes the impact but also faces internal debate.
Khamenei fired back against Trump, accusing him of "exaggerating in order to cover up and conceal the truth." The post, written in Farsi on his official X account, directly responded to Trump's earlier social media message boasting about sparing Khamenei's life during the Iran-Israel conflict. Khamenei added, "Anyone hearing those remarks could sense that behind the surface, there was another reality. They failed to achieve anything."
This social media war escalated after Khamenei's defiant video statement on Thursday, in which he declared Tehran had dealt the U.S. a "severe slap" and claimed Israel would have been "completely destroyed" without American intervention. Trump's retort came quickly, asserting that he knew the ayatollah's location and stopped U.S. or Israeli forces from "terminating" him, while also claiming credit for preventing an even greater Israeli attack on Iran.
Central to this bitter exchange are U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities during the conflict-a major escalation that both sides debate fiercely. While some U.S. officials say the strikes significantly weakened Iran's nuclear program, others are less certain. Iran publicly downplays the damage, though internal assessments remain unclear. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has also said stated that the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes inflicted serious damage on Iran's nuclear sites.
On Monday, President Trump intensified his rhetoric, declaring on Truth Social that he is not offering Iran "anything" and is "not even talking" to Iranian officials following the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. He dismissed the 2015 nuclear deal, accusing former President Barack Obama of paying billions to Tehran under the "stupid road to a Nuclear Weapon JCPOA," and criticized the agreement as a failed and costly mistake. Trump had previously withdrawn the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, citing Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional activities as justification for ending U.S. participation.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on X: "The US president exaggerated what happened in an unusual way, revealing that he needed to do so... They failed to achieve anything and are exaggerating in order to cover up and conceal the truth."
President Donald Trump on Truth Social: "I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered... I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, 'THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!'"
The fragile Iran-Israel ceasefire holds, but the sharp exchange between Trump and Khamenei is a sign of the risk of renewed conflict. Diplomatic efforts have stalled. Mixed U.S. intelligence on the strikes' effectiveness adds uncertainty.
Related Articles
The Tension Between Trump, Israel and Iran - Last Week in Your WordsIran Issues Safety Warning to Nuclear InspectorsTrump Denies Making Iran Offer, TalksIran Issues Fatwa Against Donald Trump: 'Enemy of God'
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Elon Musk is ripping the GOP and Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' again. Here's how it all went down.
Elon Musk is not done slamming President Donald Trump's" One Big Beautiful Bill" just yet. Musk started criticizing Trump's spending bill on June 5 but walked back the attacks just days later. Musk said in an X post on June 11 that some of his remarks on Trump had gone "too far." But the detente did not last long. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO reignited his attacks on the bill over the weekend and hasn't stopped since. On Saturday, Musk wrote on X that the president's signature tax bill "will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country." "Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future," he continued. GOP lawmakers hope to send the bill, which is pending a vote in the Senate, to Trump's desk by July 4. Musk, however, said he would defeat politicians who voted for the bill if it passed and form his own political party. "It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country — the PORKY PIG PARTY!!" Musk wrote in an X post on Monday. "Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people," he said. Musk said in a follow-up post, published just an hour later, that any politician who voted for the bill despite campaigning on cutting government spending should "hang their head in shame." "And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth," he added. Musk said later that a new party, the "America Party," will be formed the day after the "insane spending bill passes." "Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE," Musk added. Musk had long opposed Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill." In an interview with CBS that aired last month, Musk said he was " disappointed to see the massive spending bill." Musk said the bill "undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," the government cost-cutting outfit he led when he was a part of the Trump administration. Musk announced his departure from the White House DOGE office on May 28. "I think a bill can be big, or it could be beautiful. I don't know if it could be both," Musk told CBS. Musk's disagreement with Trump over the bill marks a rare break between the two men. Musk had been a prominent backer of Trump's presidential campaign last year, where he spent at least $277 million backing Trump and other GOP candidates in the 2024 elections. When Musk criticized Trump's bill earlier in June, he took credit for Trump and the GOP's electoral victories in 2024. That was also when he first floated the possibility of forming his own political party. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk wrote on X on June 5. "Such ingratitude," he continued. Musk said in an interview with Bloomberg on May 20 that he had "done enough" political spending and planned to " do a lot less in the future." "Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it," he added. Trump initially expressed disappointment at Musk's behavior but has since taken a more conciliatory tone with Musk. Trump said last week that he still views Musk positively but has not spoken to him much. "He's a smart guy. And he actually went and campaigned with me and this and that," Trump said in an interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that aired Sunday. "But he got a little bit upset, and that wasn't appropriate," he added.
New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal appeals court judges appear skeptical of arguments against Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act
A pair of judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical of arguments against President Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport suspected Venezuelan gang members. The conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Monday for just under an hour from both Trump administration lawyers defending the president's invocation of the 18th-century act and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys representing some of the alleged members of Tren de Aragua the administration is seeking to remove under the wartime law. The legal battle before the New Orleans-based court — which appears destined to eventually be decided by the Supreme Court — aims to determine whether Trump lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March to target the Venezuelan prison gang, and, if so, how much notice a migrant targeted for deportation must be given before removal from the US. Advertisement The Alien Enemies Act case appears destined to land at the Supreme Court, regardless of how the 5th Circuit rules. via REUTERS At one point in the hearing, Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, asked ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt if he was aware of any case law that shows you can 'second-guess the president of the United States' when the commander in chief finds there is a military conflict. Oldham specifically asked the lawyer arguing against Trump's use of the 1798 law to point to a Supreme Court case where the justices determined 'you can countermand the president of the United States when he says we are in an armed conflict.' Advertisement Gelernt said there wasn't a case, acknowledging that the 5th circuit's ruling on the Alien Enemies Act would be precedent setting. On March 14, Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, declaring that Tren de Aragua 'is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.' Trump, 79, said the gang 'is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare' against the US on behalf of the regime of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, 'clandestine or otherwise.' The gang, whose members have allegedly taken over apartment complexes and been involved in the kidnapping and torture of victims in the US, was designated a foreign terrorist organization by the Trump administration in February. Advertisement Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, asked Gelernt during the hearing why Tren de Aragua's actions in the US couldn't be considered an armed conflict. 'It has to be an armed, organized force,' Gelernt responded. 'The founders were not looking at this as some subtle clandestine thing.' Southwick noted: 'Here the president is proclaiming that you have – directed by or interwoven with the Venezuelan government – unrecognized, US terrorists.' 'I'm having a hard time drawing the line,' the judge added. Advertisement Gelernt insisted that 'the founders were concerned with large-scale activity,' dismissing Tren de Aragua's activities in the US as 'isolated crimes' that don't warrant use of the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU lawyer's argument centered on Trump's proclamation not specifically indicating that Venezuela is at war with the US, but that the gang is – which Gelernt asserted is not sufficient to use the Alien Enemies Act. He argued the provision can only be invoked as a 'precursor to all-out war.' 'The face of the proclamation does not say we are in a military conflict,' Gelernt told the panel of judges. Trump invoked the wartime law in March to swiftly deport alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. REUTERS Meanwhile, Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argued Trump used the Alien Enemies Act correctly and that the president's decision should be given 'the utmost deference.' Southwick asked Ensign to explain 'what the role of the president is in the declaration of war and when is it reviewable.' 'As to invasion or predatory incursion… the president is given extraordinary deference and is not reviewable at all,' Ensign argued. Advertisement When Southwick asked what part of the use of the AEA is reviewable, Ensign admitted that all the terms are reviewable but maintained 'the presidential determination is not subject to review … but if it is, it's subject to extremely deferential review.' 'TdA is present in over 40 states in this country,' Ensign maintained. 'They have taken over entire apartment buildings.' 'The FBI has assessed that it is likely that the TdA will try to carry out targeted assassinations of the Maduro regime… political assassinations of Maduro regime critics in the US,' he continued, making the case that all of this 'clearly supports the determination that an invasion and predatory incursion has occurred.' 'This is not an ordinary criminal gang, hopelessly enmeshed with the Maduro regime, carrying out assassinations of critics of the Maduro regime … they are a foreign terrorist organization. It is a big deal, and presents substantial dangers to the US and our public safety.' Advertisement On the amount of notice that alleged Tren de Aragua members should be given before they're deported, the Trump administration said the standard should give migrants seven days to appeal their removal, while the ACLU countered that 30 days notice – the amount of time given to suspected Nazis during World War II (when the Alien Enemies Act was last invoked) – should be allowed. The panel of appellate judges, which also includes Biden-appointed Judge Irma Ramirez, did not provide a timeline for when they would rule on the case. The outcome will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court by whichever side the court rules against.
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Feds pursuing death penalty in fatal Vermont Border Patrol shooting, attorneys claim
Federal prosecutors appear to be preparing to seek the death penalty against a woman accused in the January shooting of a U.S. Border Patrol agent near the Canadian border, and her attorneys are asking a judge to slow down the process. Attorneys for Teresa Youngblut complained in a June 30 court filing in Vermont that prosecutors are pushing an unusually aggressive timeline for bringing a death penalty case. They say the rush to judgment violates her right to investigate mitigating circumstances. "This court should step in to ensure Miss Youngblut receives a meaningful opportunity to persuade the government not to pursue the death penalty," her attorneys said in a court filing. Attorney General Pam Bondi in February singled out Youngblut's case as a prime example of how the Trump administration will aggressively seek capital punishment. Bondi said the Trump administration is committed to seeking swift justice when it comes to capital murder cases, and ordered her staff to reconsider past "no seek" decisions where federal prosecutors could have sought the death penalty but didn't. "Going forward, the Department of Justice will once again act as the law demands, including by seeking death sentences in appropriate cases and swiftly implementing those sentences in accordance with the law," Bondi said. What happened on Jan. 20? Authorities say Youngblut and a companion pulled guns on Border Patrol agents during a Jan. 20 traffic stop in which agent David Maland was shot and killed. Youngblut has not yet been specifically charged with firing the fatal shot, nor been formally notified that she faces the death penalty. The confrontation between Youngblut and Maland appears connected to a series of deaths nationwide related to the cultlike "Zizan" group, which is also being investigated in California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. The internal Justice Department process to decide whether to seek the death penalty typically takes more than a year, Youngblut's attorneys said, with even more time needed to hold the actual trial. Youngblut's attorneys also argue that with her life on the line, she is legally entitled to more time to investigate any mitigating circumstances. Court records note that Youngblut's diary contains several references to taking LSD. A German national traveling with Youngblut, Ophelia Bauckholt, was also killed in the shootout with federal agents. The two initially attracted law enforcement attention because Youngblut and Bauckholt were reported wearing tactical-style gear and openly carrying firearms, which is legal in Vermont but unusual. The two declined to speak with officers, and agents began following them, according to an affidavit. Investigators also wrongly thought Bauckholt's visa to remain in the United States had expired. According to court records and FBI affidavits, sometime in the minutes after Border Patrol agents stopped the Toyota Prius that Youngblut was driving, Youngblut opened fire with a handgun, firing at least two shots. Bauckholt, who also drew a handgun, was shot before firing. Bauckholt died at the scene, and Maland, the Border Patrol agent, died at a nearby hospital. Investigators said they found five cellphones, a night-vision device, and laptops in the Prius. Earlier this month, a grand jury indicted the Zizian group's namesake, Jack "Ziz" LaSota, on weapons charges. And a man that Youngblut was planning to marry was arrested Jan. 24 in connection with the Jan. 17 slaying of a California landlord, according to court records. A longtime Vermont defense attorney familiar with the case previously told USA TODAY he believes Youngblut opened fire on the Border Patrol agents because she thought they knew about the California murder that happened three days earlier.
