Trump warns US will strike again if Iran resumes high-level uranium enrichment
But in a Truth Social post Friday, Trump lashed out at Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for claiming in remarks to his people that Iran had prevailed in its conflict against Israel and the United States.
Advertisement
Trump called Khamenei's assertion 'a lie' and said that he had spared the Iranian leader's life. He said he 'knew EXACTLY' where Khamenei was sheltered and chose not to attack him or allow Israel to kill him. 'I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH,' Trump wrote.
Trump also said in the post that he had begun work in recent days 'on the possible removal of sanctions, and other things' to help Iran 'recover.'
But after Khamenei's message of 'anger, hatred and disgust,' he added, he 'immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more.'
Trump fielded questions on Iran during a news conference -- alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy -- to discuss a Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship.
Advertisement
Trump said it was 'a little early' to specify what he might demand in an agreement from Iran to contain its future nuclear activities. But he said he would insist on inspections of Iran's nuclear sites, conducted by either the International Atomic Energy Agency or 'somebody that we respect,' possibly including 'ourselves.'
Trump downplayed concerns from nuclear experts and European officials that Iran may have moved and hidden its stockpile of 400 kilograms, or 880 pounds, of enriched uranium, which the IAEA has estimated as sufficient to make 10 bombs in less than a year if enriched only somewhat further.
'Nothing was moved from the site,' Trump said, apparently referring to Iran's underground enrichment facility at Fordo, one of the three nuclear sites that the United States bombed Saturday. Satellite images released by Maxar Technologies, taken in the days before the U.S. strike, showed 16 cargo trucks positioned near an entrance to Fordo.
An analysis by the Open Source Center in London suggested that Iran may have been preparing the site for a strike.
Trump said the trucks were conducting masonry work to reinforce the facility's concrete bunker, not removing uranium.
'Everything's down there. It's under millions of tons of rock,' Trump said.
If the country did preserve its uranium stockpile, it is possible, some experts say, that with the right equipment Iran could enrich it to bomb-grade purity within weeks or months.
Although this month's attacks probably crippled Iran's known centrifuge facilities, experts fear that Iran may still retain secret facilities. Asked about that prospect, Trump said he was not concerned by it.
Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said in an interview released Friday that his country would be prepared to ship out its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to another country, or to store it 'under IAEA seal' within Iran.
Advertisement
In return, he said, Iran would want to receive yellowcake, a powdered form of uranium ore that requires extensive enrichment for energy or weapons production.
Speaking to Al-Monitor, a Middle East news site, Iravani reiterated Iran's position that it had a right to enrich uranium on its own soil for what he called peaceful purposes.
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would "continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.' ___
an hour ago
New Hampshire lawsuit seeks to stop politicization of youth center abuse victims' fund
CONCORD, N.H. -- Lawyers representing hundreds of men and woman who claim they were abused at New Hampshire's youth detention center filed a class action lawsuit Friday seeking to prevent the independent administrator of the state's settlement fund for victims from being replaced with a political appointee. Lawmakers created the settlement fund in 2022, pitching it as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation that would be run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget approved Thursday and signed into law by Gov. Kelly Ayotte on Friday. Under the new provisions taking effect July 1, the governor will have the authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator, and the attorney general — also a political appointee — would have veto power over settlement awards. In affidavits filed with their complaint, the lead plaintiffs said the change amounts to a bait and switch that reignited the skepticism they initially felt about the settlement process but tried to put aside. 'I never would have shared the full story of what happened to me if I did not think I would be heard by someone impartial,' said a woman identified only as Jane Doe, who said she ran away from home to escape sexual abuse only to be further abused in state custody. 'I feel incredibly betrayed by the state's actions, but this is just the latest in a long list of betrayals by the state, so maybe I should not be surprised,' she said. 'This also makes me wonder whether the state will next betray the promise of confidentiality, because it seems like their word does not mean anything to them.' Another plaintiff, Andrew Foley, described being diagnosed with PTSD, not from his time as a combat soldier in Iraq but from the physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a child. 'As I understand it, the State will now decide for itself how much my claim is worth. That is the opposite of a fair process,' his affidavit said. 'As I always believed, the state cannot be trusted.' Neither Ayotte nor Attorney General John Formella responded to requests for comment Friday. More than 1,300 people have sued since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused in state custody as children, most of them at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Only one case has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. Two other cases have been settled for $10 million and $4.5 million. The state also has brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. Many of the alleged victims put their lawsuits on hold and applied to the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. As of March 31, 296 cases had been settled, with an average award of $543,000, according to the most recently available statistics. The lawsuit filed Friday seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the governor from firing the current administrator, former state Supreme Court Chief Justice John Broderick.
an hour ago
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. Susman Godfrey suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' In a statement, the firm called the ruling 'a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.' 'We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day,' the statement said. Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.
