Trump Issues Blistering Response After Iran Threatens U.S.
President Donald Trump issued blistering remarks in response to Iran's Supreme Leader claiming victory over Israel and, by extension, the U.S. In a loaded public message, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had also threatened to attack more U.S. Military bases, further splintering the Middle Eastern country's relationship with the U.S.
'Look, you're a man of great faith. A man who's highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell,' Trump said as he addressed the Iranian Supreme Leader during a White House press conference on Friday. Trump issued an even stronger response on his social media platform, Truth Social, later in the day, and doubled down on his stance once more when he reposted his message early Saturday morning.
In the lengthy post, Trump accused Khamenei of publicly sharing a 'lie' by claiming Iran achieved a victory over Israel. He reaffirmed his much debated viewpoint that the U.S. strikes 'obliterated' the three key nuclear facilities it targeted on Saturday, June 21. Trump also seemingly made reference to previous reports that stated the White House turned down a plan by Israel to try and kill Khamenei.
'His country was decimated, his three evil nuclear sites were obliterated, and I knew exactly where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces... terminate his life. I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death,' Trump said, lamenting that Khamenei would not 'thank' him for this. 'During the last few days, I was working on the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery. The sanctions are biting! But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief.'
According to Congress, the U.S. sanctions on Iran 'are arguably the most extensive and comprehensive set of sanctions that the United States maintains on any country.' They block Iranian government assets in the U.S., ban nearly all U.S. trade with Iran, and prohibit foreign assistance and arms sales.
Read More: How U.S. Strikes May Have Inadvertently Helped the Iranian Regime
Trump concluded his charged social media message by saying 'Iran has to get back into the world order flow' or else things 'will only get worse for them.'
'They are always so angry, hostile, and unhappy, and look at what it has gotten them. A burned out, blown up country with no future, a decimated military, a horrible economy, and death all around them. They have no hope, and it will only get worse! I wish the leadership of Iran would realize that you often get more with honey than you do with vinegar. Peace!"
Khamenei broke his silence on Thursday, publicly speaking out—via a pre-recorded televised address and various social media comments— for the first time since Trump announced the (admittedly fragile) cease-fire between Israel and Iran.
In his televised message, Khamenei threatened to attack more U.S. military bases should any more aggression from the U.S. side occur.
'The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region,' Khamenei said, referring to his country's air assault on Al Udeid Air Base, a U.S. airbase in Qatar. The strikes were intercepted by the U.S. (except for one that was allowed to proceed as there was no risk of contact), and no casualties were reported. The military action was retaliatory, a direct response to the U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities.
Khamenei claimed 'total victory' over Israel. But Israel, the U.S., and Iran have all claimed to have won the war that started on June 13, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets, amid growing concern over Iran's nuclear capabilities. When the U.S. actively joined the conflict on June 21, striking three key Iranian nuclear facilities, world leaders urged de-escalation and a return to negotiations, amid fears of a far-reaching war erupting.
Read More: 'Gravely Alarmed' World Leaders React After U.S. Strikes Iran
Though Trump continues to say that Iran's nuclear sites were 'totally obliterated,' others have cast doubts on how effective the U.S. strikes were in setting back Iran's nuclear program. Leaked U.S. intelligence suggested that the damage to Iran's nuclear program may not be as severe as Trump has stated. CIA director John Ratcliffe said on Wednesday that the sites had been 'severely damaged' by the U.S. strikes, and that it would take years to be rebuilt. Amid the debate, the White House has put out statements arguing Trump's stance that the facilities were "obliterated," labelling reports to the contrary as "fake news."
But some Democrats left a classified meeting with lingering questions over the effectiveness of the strikes.
'There's no doubt there was damage done to the program, but the allegations that we have obliterated their program just don't seem to stand up to reason,' said Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut on Thursday. 'To me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months.'
When asked about concerns of Iran having 'secret nuclear sites' at Friday's press conference, Trump said he was 'not worried about it at all.'
'They're exhausted. The last thing they're thinking about right now is nuclear,' he told reporters. 'You know what they're thinking of? They're thinking about tomorrow, trying to live in such a mess. The place was bombed to hell.'
Meanwhile, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that Trump needs to retire his "disrespectful" tone towards Khamenei if he wants a deal to be struck between the U.S. and Iran.'If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers,' he said. "The great and powerful Iranian people, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had no choice but to run to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our missiles, do not take kindly to threats and insults."
Araghchi was referencing remarks made by NATO chief Mark Rutte who, during the NATO Summit on Wednesday, referred to Trump as the "daddy" who had to intervene in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
36 minutes ago
- CNN
Persian Jews find refuge in ‘Tehrangeles'
Persian Jews find refuge in 'Tehrangeles' CNN's Nick Watt reports from Westwood Boulevard in Los Angeles, situated in a neighborhood known as "Tehrangeles" for its population of Iranians and Persian Jews. 01:06 - Source: CNN Vertical Top News 16 videos Persian Jews find refuge in 'Tehrangeles' CNN's Nick Watt reports from Westwood Boulevard in Los Angeles, situated in a neighborhood known as "Tehrangeles" for its population of Iranians and Persian Jews. 01:06 - Source: CNN Trump reacts to win at the Supreme Court President Trump thanked conservative Supreme Court justices and explained what he plans to do next after the Court backed his effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months. 00:46 - Source: CNN Supreme Court backs parents who want to opt out of LGBTQ+ curriculum The Supreme Court on Friday backed a group of religious parents who want to opt their elementary school children out of engaging with LGBTQ books in the classroom, another major legal win for religious interests at the conservative high court. 00:52 - Source: CNN Supreme Court limits ability of judges to stop Trump The Supreme Court backed President Donald Trump's effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months. However, it signaled that the president's controversial plan to effectively end birthright citizenship may never be enforced. 01:32 - Source: CNN What we know ahead of the Bezos-Sanchez wedding After a stormy evening in Venice, CNN's Melissa Bell explains why details remain closely guarded ahead of the Bezos-Sanchez wedding. 01:25 - Source: CNN See moment suspect lights fire on Seoul subway CCTV footage released by the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office captures the moment a man lit a fire on a busy subway in the South Korean capital last month. The footage, from May 31, shows passengers running away after the suspect doused the floor of the train carriage with flammable liquid before setting it alight. Reuters reports that according to the prosecutors' office, six people were injured. The prosecutor's office says it charged the 67-year-old man with attempted murder and arson. 00:48 - Source: CNN Hear Zohran Mamdani's response to concerns by the wealthy over his tax plan CNN's Erin Burnett speaks with New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani about concerns over taxing the city's wealthy to fund his proposed initiatives, and whether it will cause them to leave the city. 02:27 - Source: CNN Details emerge of secret diplomatic efforts to restart Iran talks CNN's Kylie Atwood reports on The Trump administration discussing possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, easing sanctions, and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds. 01:11 - Source: CNN How Diddy's body language was 'different' in court today CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister reports on Sean "Diddy" Combs' family in court for closing arguments in his criminal trial and a notable difference in Combs' body language. 01:18 - Source: CNN Anna Wintour steps down as Vogue editor-in-chief Editor-in-chief of Vogue, Anna Wintour, is stepping down and seeking a replacement, the magazine's publisher Condé Nast confirmed to CNN. She will shift to a role of global chief content officer, where she will oversee every brand's global operations. 00:34 - Source: CNN Fireball spotted across the sky A 'daytime fireball' was caught on video in the sky over South Carolina – causing a sonic boom, according to the American Meteor Society. CNN has reached out to emergency management officials in North Carolina and Tennessee, as well as NASA for comment. 00:36 - Source: CNN Gen. Caine shares video of 'bunker buster' bomb test At a press conference about the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, shared video of 'bunker buster' bomb test and shared information about what they know about the strike. 01:05 - Source: CNN Gen. Caine says moment after strikes gave him chills At a press conference about the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, discusses the pilots who carried out the strikes and the reactions from their families after they returned home. 01:09 - Source: CNN 'Daddy's home:' Trump leans into NATO chief comment NATO Chief Mark Rutte got the world's attention after referring to President Trump as "daddy" after he used the analogy of two children fighting to describe the conflict between Iran and Israel. In a press conference, Rutte, explained his reason for using the term "daddy." Trump spoke about the moment at a press conference, and the White House leaned into the term in a social media post. 00:50 - Source: CNN Trump's team credits him with creating a decades-old phrase White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt falsely claimed that President Trump came up with the phrase "peace through strength." CNN's Abby Phillip reports on how the phrase has been used for decades. 01:22 - Source: CNN Cuomo called Mamdani after conceding NYC mayoral primary New York state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani was on the brink of a stunning Democratic primary win Tuesday for New York City mayor, with his top challenger, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, conceding the race. 00:38 - Source: CNN
UPI
41 minutes ago
- UPI
Bill to limit Trump's use of military against Iran fails to pass in U.S. Senate
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced a resolution to curtail President Donald Trump's power to use force against Iran, which voted down along largely party lines. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI . | License Photo June 28 (UPI) -- Senate Democrats have failed in their attempt to curtail President Donald Trump's ability to use the military against Iran without congressional approval. The vote Friday night was 53-47. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted with Democrats to approve the resolution, and Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to vote no in invoking the War Powers Act of 1973. "If we are to ask our young men and women to fight, and potentially give their lives, then we in this body can at least muster the courage to debate if American military intervention is warranted," Paul who has advocated for restrained foreign policy, said on the Senate floor before the vote. "Abdicating our constitutional responsibility by allowing the executive branch to unilaterally introduce U.S. troops into wars is an affront to the Constitution, and the American people," he said. Fetterman, a staunch supporter of Israel, told reporters he voted against the resolution "simply because I would never want to restrict any future president, Republican or Democrat, to do this kind of military exercise." Days before Trump authorized B-2 stealth bombers to strike three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend, Sen. Tim Kaine had already introduced a resolution under the War Powers Act of 1973, which limits a president's power to enter an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. Israel first struck Iran on June 13 in an effort to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II. The War Powers Act was approved after President Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia. Congress sought Nixon's power to continue expanding the war amid deep national displeasure about the war. Nixon vetoed the bill, which was overridden by a near unanimous vote of Congress. In this new situation, the White House would need approval from the House and Senate before U.S. forces could use further military action against Iran. "I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decision of any one person," Kaine said on the Senate floor. "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." In 2020, eight Republicans joined Democrats in preventing Trump from acting against Iran during his first term in the White House. "I'll be voting with Republicans against the war power resolution. When we're talking about nuclear weapons, the president should have the discretion he needs to act," Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who supported the 2020 resolution, posted Thursday X. Susan Collins, a moderate from Maine, joined her Republican colleagues to vote against the bill. "I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now. The President has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack," Collins wrote on X after the vote. In the House, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky had also introduced a war powers resolution but decided not to press for a vote amid the cease-fire in the Iran-Israel conflict, which announced Monday as his supports hit out against Massie. The Pro Trump PAC MAGA Kentucky released an ad titled "What Happened to Thomas Massie?" seeking his ouster from the House in 2026 after an interview about the resolution on Sunday morning.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Advertisement Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Advertisement But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Advertisement Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Advertisement Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that 'district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not 'carefully heed this court's guidance' and act within limits, 'this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene.' In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. Advertisement All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing 'legalese,' she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. 'In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law — and it must,' she wrote before striking a cautionary note. Advertisement 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law,' she added. 'By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.' But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.' This article originally appeared in
