Trump eyeing conflict with Iran
US President Donald Trump is considering involving the US directly in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict, Axios has reported, citing three anonymous officials familiar with the situation.
The US president left the G7 summit early on Monday and is scheduled to meet with his national security team on Tuesday.
Trump has lauded the Israeli bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities, but has so far held off on taking part in offensive operations.
'Trump was seriously considering joining the war and launching a US strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, especially its underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow,' Axios wrote. West Jerusalem believes that the US will 'enter the war in the coming days,' the outlet said, citing Israeli officials.
While a potential intervention will be discussed at Tuesday's meeting, there are differences of opinion among Trump's closes advisers, CBS News wrote, citing five sources familiar with the matter.
US forces deployed in the region have the bunker-buster bombs Israeli lacks that could destroy Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, Axios wrote on Sunday.
There is no indication that the facility, built deep inside a mountain, has been damaged, according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi.
According to Israeli National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi, the campaign against Iran 'will not end without damaging the Fordow nuclear facility.' Israel is in constant communication with Washington on the matter, he said in an interview on Tuesday.
A few hours prior to Tuesday's security meeting, Trump delivered a chain of posts on Truth Social, claiming that the US now has unobstructed primacy in Iranian airspace, boasting that he could assassinate Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and demanding that Tehran capitulates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
28 minutes ago
- Russia Today
‘If Iran falls, we all lose': Why Tehran's allies see this war as civilizational
In his first public address since the beginning of Operation Rising Lion, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to strip Iran of the ability to develop nuclear weapons, eliminate its ballistic missile capabilities, and remove what he called an existential threat to the State of Israel. 'This is a battle for survival,' Netanyahu told reporters in a Zoom press conference on Monday. 'We will continue this operation until the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer a nuclear threat – not to Israel, not to the region, not to the world.' Netanyahu's bold declaration came as Israeli jets continued a fourth day of coordinated strikes deep into Iranian territory. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), over 370 missiles and hundreds of UAVs have been launched from Iran since Friday, prompting swift Israeli retaliation. The IDF claims to have struck more than 90 strategic targets across Iran, including suspected missile depots, radar installations, and command centers near Tehran, Esfahan, and along the Persian Gulf coast. The operation has already resulted in more than 200 casualties in Iran, though precise numbers remain unverified due to restricted access for international media. Satellite imagery reviewed by analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security showed significant damage to facilities near Natanz and Parchin, long suspected of being part of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But critics of the Israeli campaign – and its justification – are raising serious concerns about the underlying motives of Netanyahu and his allies. Mohammad Marandi, a prominent Iranian academic, political analyst, and adviser to Iran's nuclear negotiating team, rejects Netanyahu's claims outright. 'The regime is lying about nuclear programs just to justify aggression and murder,' Marandi told RT. 'Tulsi Gabbard, who is the Director of US National Intelligence, just recently said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. So it's clear that the issue is Netanyahu, neat escalation, and the Zionist lobby in the United States is behind him.' Iran's nuclear program has long been a subject of contention. While Tehran has enriched uranium and developed advanced centrifuge technology, it has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons. Iranian officials argue that their nuclear program is designed solely for peaceful energy production and medical research – a position grounded, they say, in religious doctrine that prohibits weapons of mass destruction. To prove its intentions, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, an international accord with the US and European powers that limited uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal, reigniting tensions. Since then, Tehran has allowed international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) limited access to its facilities, but Israel remains unconvinced. According to Marandi, Israel's true objective lies far beyond neutralizing a nuclear threat. 'It's always been so-called regime change,' he said. 'Whether it's the Israeli regime or the Americans or the Europeans. That's how they are. They don't want independent countries, and especially countries like Iran, which support the Palestinian cause.' Marandi is not alone in his assessment. Syrian analyst Taleb Ibrahim, a longtime commentator on Iranian affairs and an author of several books on the Islamic Republic, agrees that Western powers – particularly the United States – are pursuing a broader geopolitical agenda. 'If the United States will put its hands on Iran again [like it was before 1979],' Ibrahim told RT, 'they will block the Russian southern wall. This means that Russia will not be able to expand its influence beyond the Caspian Sea. And it will be restricted to a very narrow place between Central Asia and the Arctic.' Ibrahim warns that China, too, would suffer consequences from a weakened Iran. 'China will not be able to reach the Middle East. Because if Iran becomes part of the Western bloc, it will sever China's access. And the most important thing of all – a new world order will emerge. It will be a new American world order.' Ibrahim believes this is not a regional conflict, but part of a sweeping strategy to restore American hegemony. 'To make America great again is to regain American control across the globe. The war in Iran is just a chapter in that plan.' President Donald Trump has thus far distanced himself from the Israeli operation, saying America's goals are purely defensive and promising that he will not be starting any wars. But Ibrahim is unconvinced. 'In strategy, if you want to make war, talk about peace,' he said. 'The United States is preparing for a very big war – first against China, then Russia. After this, they will try to build an American century. One government for the world, headquartered in the White House. That's the final goal.' Both Marandi and Ibrahim agree that forced regime change in Iran would unleash chaos across the region. The fall of Tehran's current government could lead to the fragmentation of Iran – a multi-ethnic nation with Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, and Baloch who may pursue autonomy or independence in the power vacuum. It could ignite sectarian warfare akin to what unfolded in Iraq after the 2003 US invasion, and destabilize fragile neighbors like Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Turkey. Moreover, Iran's alliances with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias across Iraq and Syria mean that a collapse in Tehran could trigger cascading violence across the Middle East. Global oil markets, already rattled, could see disruptions on a historic scale. Yet, both experts maintain that such an outcome is unlikely. 'Regime change is more likely in Israel and across Europe than anywhere near Iran,' Marandi said. 'These Western governments failed with Russia, failed with China, and they'll fail with Iran too.' Ibrahim agrees: 'It is impossible to make regime change in Iran by force. The Iran-Iraq war was designed to do exactly that – to overthrow the Islamic Republic established by Ayatollah Khomeini. But after eight years of war, billions of dollars, and support from the US, France, and Gulf states, Iran survived – and emerged stronger. The only way to change the regime is through the Iranian people. And right now, the Iranian people are standing with their leaders. They believe they are fighting the Satan – the US, the bigger Satan, and Israel, the smaller one. And that gives them unity and strength.' As Israel continues its campaign and the international community watches nervously, the implications of the current conflict are far from limited to the Middle East. 'This war,' Ibrahim concluded, 'will be the starting point of reshaping the world. If Iran wins – and I believe it will, eventually – the world will shift to a multipolar order. That is the shared vision of Iran, Russia, and China. But if Iran loses, we will all live under an American empire. The White House will rule from Washington to Beijing. This is a decisive battle – not just for Iran, but for the destiny of the world.' As missiles fly and rhetoric intensifies, what began as a regional standoff may ultimately determine the balance of power in the 21st century.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Canadian state media explains absence of G7 Ukraine statement
G7 leaders did not issue a joint statement on the Ukraine conflict following the group's recent summit in Canada, because the US refused to sign off unless it was 'watered down,' Canadian state broadcaster CBC and other media outlets have reported. The summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, ran from Sunday to Tuesday. US President Donald Trump left the gathering early, and did not meet with Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky, who also attended. On Tuesday, CBC cited an anonymous official from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's office admitting that plans for a group statement on Ukraine were dropped. The Americans reportedly opposed wording referencing Russia, due to concerns that it could jeopardize US-brokered diplomatic efforts to settle the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. The Canadian PM's office later rejected the reports, with its spokesperson Emily Williams insisting that 'no proposed joint statement regarding Ukraine was distributed. Canada's intention was always for the important language to be a part of the G7 Chairs' Summary Statement, and it was.' Carney's Summary statement said that the 'G7 leaders expressed support for President Trump's efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine' and backed Kiev's call for 'an unconditional ceasefire.' Russia has repeatedly rejected Ukraine's sudden demand, calling it a ploy to allow Ukrainian forces regroup and resupply. According to Carney, the G7 is 'resolute in exploring all options to maximize pressure on Russia, including financial sanctions.' Commenting on the summit on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the event was 'rather unremarkable and meaningless.'
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
40% of Americans expect civil war in next decade
Forty percent of Americans believe a civil war in the US is 'somewhat' or 'very' likely within the next decade, a new YouGov poll released on Tuesday suggests. The poll, which surveyed 3,375 adults, underscores widespread anxiety over the nation's deepening divisions. It also follows a wave of unrest in the country, including violent protests against federal deportations and nationwide demonstrations aimed at President Donald Trump. Women were more likely than men to consider civil conflict plausible, with 45% indicating it was likely. Views also varied by political affiliation: 48% of Democrats, 39% of independents, and 32% of Republicans said a civil war was at least somewhat probable. While respondents were more or less split on the likelihood of a civil war, just over 20% were unsure or declined to answer. The data also suggested racial disparities. Among white respondents, 10% said a civil war was 'very likely,' compared to 18% of black respondents. Hispanics were the least likely to completely dismiss the idea, with only 11% saying a conflict was 'not likely at all,' while 15% called it 'very likely.' Earlier this month, riots erupted across California in response to federal immigration enforcement actions. Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines after a public clash with California Governor Gavin Newsom over his handling of the crisis. Last week, Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were fatally shot and State Senator John Hoffman and his wife injured in what officials called 'politically motivated' attacks. On Saturday, an estimated 5 million people participated in 'No Kings' marches across all 50 states. Organizers described the protests as a stand against 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.' Meanwhile, some Republican allies have warned that Trump is losing support for deviating from his 'America First' platform, particularly after backing Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump dismissed the criticism in an interview with The Atlantic, saying he alone defines what 'America First' means.
