
Trump to decide US' Israel-Iran action in next two weeks
Citing a message from Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters: "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks."
The Republican president has kept the world guessing on his plans, veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the U.S. might join the fighting on Israel's side. On Wednesday (local time), he said nobody knew what he would do. A day earlier he mused on social media about killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then demanded Iran's unconditional surrender.
The threats have caused cracks in Trump's support base between more hawkish traditional Republicans and the party's more isolationist elements.
But critics said that in the five months since returning to office, Trump has issued a range of deadlines - including to warring Russia and Ukraine and to other countries in trade tariff negotiations - only to suspend those deadlines or allow them to slide.
"I think going to war with Iran is a terrible idea, but no one believes this 'two weeks' bit," Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on the social media platform X. "He's used it a million times before to pretend he might be doing something he's not. It just makes America look weak and silly."
Leavitt told a regular briefing at the White House that Trump was interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran, but his top priority was ensuring that Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon.
She said any deal would have to prohibit enrichment of uranium by Tehran and eliminate Iran's ability to achieve a nuclear weapon.
"The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution ... if there's a chance for diplomacy, the president's always going to grab it," Leavitt said. "But he's not afraid to use strength as well I will add." BYPASSING CONGRESS?
Leavitt declined to say if Trump would seek congressional authorization for any strikes on Iran. Democrats have raised concerns over reports on CBS and other outlets that Trump has already approved a plan to attack Iran, bypassing Congress, which has the sole power to declare war.
Leavitt said U.S. officials remained convinced that Iran had never been closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, saying it would take Tehran just "a couple of weeks" to produce such a weapon.
Leavitt's assessment contradicted congressional testimony in March from Trump's intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard. She said then that the U.S. intelligence community continued to judge that Tehran was not working on a nuclear warhead.
This week, Trump dismissed Gabbard's March testimony, telling reporters: "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one."
On Wednesday, Trump lieutenant Steve Bannon urged caution about the U.S. joining Israel in trying to destroy Iran's nuclear program.
Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran on Thursday and Iran fired missiles and drones at Israel after hitting an Israeli hospital overnight, as a week-old air war escalated and neither side showed any sign of an exit strategy.
Leavitt said Trump had been briefed on the Israeli operation on Thursday and remained in close communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She said Iran was in "a deeply vulnerable position" and would face grave consequences if it did not agree to halt its work on a nuclear weapon.
Iran has been weighing wider options in responding to the biggest security challenge since its 1979 revolution.
Three diplomats told Reuters that Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi have spoken by phone several times since Israel began its strikes last week.
Hashtags

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

RNZ News
15 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Gaza suffering has reached 'unimaginable' levels, say 26 foreign ministers
Palestinians queue to fill up on drinking water in the sweltering heat in the Mawasi area of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on 12 August, 2025. Photo: AFP The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached "unimaginable levels", Britain, Canada, Australia and several of their European allies say, calling on Israel to allow unrestricted aid into the war-torn Palestinian enclave . "Famine is unfolding before our eyes. Urgent action is needed now to halt and reverse starvation," the foreign ministers of 24 countries said in a joint statement. "We call on the government of Israel to provide authorisation for all international NGO (non-governmental organisations) aid shipments and to unblock essential humanitarian actors from operating," the statement said. "All crossings and routes must be used to allow a flood of aid into Gaza, including food, nutrition supplies, shelter, fuel, clean water, medicine and medical equipment." Israel has denied responsibility for hunger spreading in Gaza, accusing Hamas militants of stealing aid shipments, which Hamas denies. However, in response to a rising international uproar, Israel late last month announced steps to let more aid into the enclave, including pausing fighting for part of the day in some areas and announcing protected routes for aid convoys. Western capitals, however, say much more aid is needed and some countries have started airdrops with aid over Gaza. The statement was signed by the foreign ministers of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain. The EU later on Tuesday sent an updated statement to include EU member states Italy and Latvia as signatories of the statement. The EU's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, and two other members of the European Commission also signed the statement. Some EU member countries, including Germany and Hungary, did not sign it. - Reuters

RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Green's co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick to decide whether to apologise and return to Parliament
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick will today decide whether she will return to Parliament and apologise, or continue to be barred from the House for the rest of the week. During an urgent debate on Tuesday, Swarbrick said government MPs could grow a spine and support her bill imposing sanctions on Israel. The Speaker suspended her from Parliament and said unless she apologises, he will do so again every day this week. Swarbrick said the party will follow the correct processes, and will ask the speaker to reflect on previous language in Parliament. She said she's angry people are being massacred in Gaza, and politicians need to do their job. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.


Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump in element but summit unlikely to end war
"I love deadlines," Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy , said. "I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." United States President Donald Trump sets deadlines for more complicated reasons that purport to be tactical, but he too is addicted to the whooshing sound they make when he breaks them. His latest display of disdain for the deadlines he sets himself began in mid-July, when he gave Russia a 50-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire in its war against Ukraine. A week later, in an apparent fit of temper over President Vladimir Putin's relentless nightly attacks on Ukrainian cities, Trump moved the deadline up by a month, to August 8. Russia's penalty for missing that deadline was allegedly going to be American "secondary tariffs" against other countries that continue to buy Russian oil, notably China, India and Turkey. "I used trade for a lot of things, but it's great for settling wars," Trump boasted — only to discover, not for the first time, that his intended targets were able to push back. Trump declared, again before the actual deadline rolled around, that India's new tariff would be 50%, not 25%, if it did not stop buying heavily discounted Russian oil. Prime Minister Narendra Modi immediately declared that he was ready to "pay a huge price" rather than let the US dictate India's trade policies — and Trump did not even try it on with China or Turkey. So with no leverage in Moscow, his deadline for a Russian ceasefire passed unmentioned. Instead, he sent his favourite emissary, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, to make a new offer: a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin in which the two men would make a deal without the Ukrainians, the European Nato countries, or anybody else present. Putin jumped at the chance, as it will be his first face-to-face meeting with a US president since 2021. (He was being boycotted because of his invasion of Ukraine, but this is presumably one of Russia's rewards for agreeing to a "summit".) However, what Trump hopes to get out of it is less obvious. Although Trump is very much in thrall to Vladimir Putin, who he mistakenly believes to be his personal friend, he knows that a full Russian conquest of Ukraine would not look good on his record. His real goal is to win the Nobel Peace Prize in order to end the shame of having seen Barack Obama get one first. For that, he needs a longer-lasting "peace". This need not be a permanent peace settlement that includes an independent Ukraine. Trump really believes in "America First", and Ukraine's long-term fate is of no interest to him. But he must persuade Putin to accept only a partial victory now (and maybe final conquest later) in order to portray himself to the Norwegian Nobel committee as a plausible peacemaker. This explanation sounds so stupid and ridiculous that people have difficulty in taking it seriously, but it does explain why Trump has tried so hard to bully first one side (Ukraine), then the other side (Russia), and now back to Ukraine, into signing that kind of nothing-settled ceasefire. If you still question that analysis, consider the fact that Trump regularly indulges in extended public rants about the sheer injustice of Obama getting a Nobel Peace Prize and leaving him still without one. So when Putin dangles the prospect of a one-on-one summit before Witkoff, of course Trump is tempted, even if it would impose a disadvantageous ceasefire on Ukraine. However, there will probably not be a complete sell-out of Ukraine in Alaska, for two reasons. The first is that Putin, rightly or wrongly, is convinced that he is now winning the war by sheer weight of numbers, and that it is only a matter of time until Ukraine collapses. In that case, why would he now trim his maximal aspirations for the sake of a ceasefire? Those aspirations include Russian sovereignty over Crimea and the four south-eastern regions of Ukraine (including the yet unconquered parts), and permanent neutrality and a much-reduced army for Ukraine. In the long run, Putin aspires to "reunite" all of Ukraine with Russia under one pretext or another, but a decisive military victory might make it possible now. The other reason to assume that the Alaskan summit is unlikely to end the war is the fact that if Trump does completely sell out Ukraine, the Ukrainians will go on fighting anyway. They would be fighting at a worse disadvantage and facing a bigger likelihood of eventual conquest, but they know that wars can have unpredictable outcomes until the next-to-last moment. And whatever happens, Trump will go on setting deadlines and then missing them. Just like he did in the real estate business. • Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.