Iran foreign minister to visit Moscow today
Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said he will visit Moscow on Monday for "serious consultations", and is also likely to meet President Vladimir Putin. Russia termed the US strikes "irresponsible" and a "blatant violation of international law".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
10 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump is open to regime change in Iran, after his admin said that wasn't goal
The Trump administration on Sunday sent a series of conflicting messages to Iran - with US officials initially indicating a willingness to resume negotiations after a surprise attack on three of the country's nuclear sites and President Donald Trump talking up the possibility of regime change. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change', but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" Trump posted on social media. "MIGA!!!" The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing. "This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Hegseth said. The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the US president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran. Live Events Up until the US president's post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Trump's vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. Hegseth had said that America "does not seek war" with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings that could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack US bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear programme that might seem like more of a necessity after the US strike. All of that raises the question of whether the strikes will open up a far more brutal phase of fighting or revive negotiations out of an abundance of caution. Inside the US, the attack quickly spilled over into domestic politics with Trump choosing to spend part of his Sunday going after his critics in Congress. Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambaste Rep Thomas Massie, who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. "We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the bomb right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)" Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. At their joint Pentagon briefing, Hegseth and Air Force Gen Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. Caine indicated that the goal of the operation - destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan - had been achieved. "Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Caine said. Vance said in a television interview that while he would not discuss "sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground," he felt "very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon." Pressed further, he told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon." The vice president said the US had "negotiated aggressively' with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting "in good faith." "I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbours, not to be a threat to the United States, and if they're willing to do that, the United States is all ears," Vance said. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "there are no planned military operations right now against Iran, unless, unless they mess around and they attack" US interests. Trump has previously threatened other countries, but often backed down or failed to follow through, given his promises to his coalition of voters not to entangle the United States in an extended war. It was not immediately clear whether Iran saw the avoidance of a wider conflict as in its best interests. Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East after the US inserted itself into the war between Israel and Iran. Israeli airstrikes that began on June 13 local time targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and generals, prompting retaliation from Iran and creating a series of events that contributed to the US attack. While US officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticised the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Washington was "fully responsible" for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. "They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities," he said at a news conference in Turkey. "I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy." China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the US military action. The attacks were "a gross violation of international law," said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated "returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course." A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to "a global level". British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for "a rapid resumption of negotiations." France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi crown prince and sultan of Oman. Iran could try to stop oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, which could create the same kind of inflationary shocks that the world felt after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Oil prices increased in the financial markets as the war between Israel and Iran had intensified, climbing by 21% over the past month. The Pentagon briefing did not provide any new details about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Hegseth said the timeline for the strikes was the result of a schedule set by Trump for talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions. "Iran found out" that when Trump "says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation," Hegseth said. "Otherwise, that nuclear programme, that new nuclear capability will not exist. He meant it." That statement was complicated as the White House had suggested last Thursday that Trump could take as much as two weeks to determine whether to strike Iran or continue to pursue negotiations. But the US benefited from Iran's weakened air defences and was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran. "Iran's fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran's surface to air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission," Caine said. Hegseth said that a choice to move a number of B-2 bombers from their base in Missouri earlier Saturday was meant to be a decoy to throw off Iranians. Caine added that the US used other methods of deception as well, deploying fighters to protect the B-2 bombers that dropped a total of 14 bunker-buster bombs on Iran's sites at Fordo and Natanz. The strikes occurred Saturday between 6:40 pm and 7:05 pm in Washington, or roughly 2:10 am on Sunday in Iran.
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump's gamble in Iran: Implications for the US, its allies, and a weakened Tehran
In a bold political gamble, US President Donald Trump has now entered the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, after initially distancing himself from Tel Aviv's strikes on Tehran's nuclear infrastructure earlier this month. Whether or not this was his original intent, Trump's intervention carries far-reaching implications—not just for US domestic politics and foreign policy, but also for the geopolitics of the Middle East and broader Asia. Trump's principal political challenge may not come from international criticism labelling his actions as illegal—a view echoed by the opposition Democratic Party—but rather from within his own support base, the 'Make America Great Again' coalition. A key element that propelled Trump back into the White House has been the solid support of the populist right-wing that has been vocal in its opposition to America's 'endless wars' in the Middle East. Throughout his campaign, Trump promised to be a 'peace president,' pledging to avoid military entanglements abroad. His calculation appears to be that the strike on Iran would be swift and decisive and that Tehran would comply with his demands. But recent American history suggests it is far easier to start a war than to end one. The enemy, after all, has a say in when—and whether—it ends. Trump is betting that Iran is too weak to mount a significant response or that American military power can suppress any escalation. Yet if he is dragged into a drawn-out conflict, the resulting backlash could erode his domestic support and jeopardise his presidency. Iran, for its part, has shown little interest in capitulating. It has launched missile attacks against Israel, though the frequency and intensity of these strikes are tapering off. Israel, enjoying complete air superiority, continues to target Iranian military infrastructure with impunity. Still, Tehran retains the option to widen the war—by targeting US forces in the region, attacking American allies, or disrupting vital oil shipping lanes in the Gulf. Such actions would provoke massive retaliation from the US, particularly against Iran's oil sector. Yet with the Islamic Republic's political credibility on the line, passivity is not an option. Over the past year and a half, Iran has lost considerable ground in the Middle East. A resurgent Israel has dealt major blows to Tehran's regional proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has also lost a key ally in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, its principal international backers—Russia and China—have criticised US actions but offered little tangible support in the face of coordinated Israeli-American military pressure. Whether Moscow and Beijing will now step in to provide political or diplomatic cover for Tehran remains uncertain. Iran's Arab neighbors, who have no reason to love the Islamic Republic of Iran, have provided passive support to Israel's offensive. Many in the Gulf may quietly welcome the dismantling of Iran's nuclear capabilities, but they also fear the consequences of a prolonged war that could destabilise the region and threaten their own security. For Israel, US military involvement represents a major strategic victory. Tel Aviv's goals go beyond halting Iran's nuclear programme—it seeks regime change in Tehran. Whether the nuclear infrastructure has been permanently destroyed or merely set back remains unclear. Tehran insists the US strikes had minimal impact, and many observers suspect Iran may have secured its enriched uranium stockpiles before the bombing began. While Israel continues to pursue the elusive goal of regime change, the outcome remains far from certain. Beyond the Middle East, America's Asian allies are watching with concern. They worry that Washington's oft-repeated 'pivot to Asia' could once again be sidelined by military entanglements in the Middle East. Beijing, however, is unlikely to object. A distracted United States, preoccupied with the Middle Eastern wars, makes it easier for China to pursue strategic primacy across the Indo-Pacific. (C Raja Mohan is a distinguished fellow at the Council on Strategic and Defence Research, Delhi, and a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express)
Mint
12 minutes ago
- Mint
Iran tries to buy time to weigh its response to US strikes
With the U.S. joining Israel to strike Iran's main nuclear sites, Iran's clerical leaders face a tough choice: hit back quickly and risk expanding a devastating war, or return to nuclear talks where they would likely have to cede to American demands. Iranian officials may have bought themselves some time to maneuver Sunday by saying they had minimized the impact from the U.S. strikes to their nuclear program. State media said damage at the key Fordow enrichment facility was limited to the entrance tunnel and that important equipment had been moved out before the bombings. The United Nations' nuclear agency also said there hadn't been radiation leaks. That could reduce the public pressure to retaliate immediately and instead provide the regime room to come up with a plan to deter future U.S. and Israeli strikes. Iran's choice could prove pivotal, determining not only the stability of the broader region and its energy exports to the rest of the world, but potentially the survival of the theocracy in Tehran. 'Iran is facing a dilemma," said Mohamed Amersi, a Middle East expert on the Global Advisory Council of the Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. He said it could respond with symbolic strikes against Western assets while trying to negotiate a cease-fire with Israel in exchange for relief from the West's economic sanctions. Or it could choose to raise the stakes by targeting more substantive Western targets in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, along with strategic locations in Israel and strikes in oil-producing regions of the Persian Gulf. 'In the second case, Iran should expect the U.S. to re-engage," Amersi said. The immediate aftermath of the American strikes saw Iran limit its response to Israel, firing ballistic missiles at several areas of the country and damaging residential buildings in Tel Aviv, according to Magen David Adom, the country's emergency services agency. At least 16 people were wounded. But should Iran opt to broaden its attacks, its targets could include American bases and embassies in Iraq, Bahrain and other parts of the region. Iran could also try to close the Strait of Hormuz—a transit chokepoint for a quarter of the world's oil—by attacking ships or laying mines. The goal would be to trigger an oil-supply crisis, a surge in prices and a drop in global stock markets in a bet that would pressure Persian Gulf nations and the U.S. to broker a diplomatic outcome. It is a risky course that could instead lead to more U.S. attacks that could threaten the durability of the regime in Tehran. Some analysts expect Iran to play it relatively safe. Iranian Navy soldiers patrolling near the Strait of Hormuz in 2019. Based on past behavior, Iran could 'harass shipping to boost oil prices, which could hurt the U.S. economy, especially under Trump," said Europe-based Mostafa Pakzad, chairman of Pakzad Consulting, which advises foreign companies on Iranian geopolitics. In 2018, after President Trump took the U.S. out of a pact limiting Iran's nuclear program and ordered an oil embargo on the country, Tehran attacked passing vessels using limpet mines in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's response to the January 2020 U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq offers further clues to its potential reaction. Soleimani was widely seen as one of the most powerful men in Iran after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran retaliated by launching ballistic missiles at U.S. military bases in Iraq, wounding scores of U.S. troops but not killing any Americans. A key question now is whether Iran even has the military capability to expand the war after 10 days of blistering strikes by Israel that have targeted its weapons systems, senior leaders and military infrastructure. Although Iran continues to strike Israel, its arsenal of missiles is shrinking. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that Israel has destroyed half of Iran's missile launchers, making it harder to use those that remain. 'Iran, in a conventional contest, is in a much weaker position," said Michael Singh, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 'But we do know that Iran has other capabilities, whether that's cyber capabilities, terrorist proxies and so forth." Israeli rescue workers at a building in Tel Aviv hit by missiles. The regional militias belonging to Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance, which Tehran has built and supported for decades, have largely remained on the sidelines so far. But Yemen's Houthi militia warned on Saturday that it would target U.S. warships and commercial ships in the Red Sea if the U.S. bombs Iran. Mohammed al-Basha, founder of U.S.-based Middle East security advisory Basha Report, said he anticipates 'measured retaliation from Iranian-backed proxy forces…rather than full-scale warfare," with groups such as the Houthis and Iraq's Kataib Hezbollah targeting American regional interests. He said the attacks would likely resemble Iran's nonlethal response to the Soleimani killing, which he described as a symbolic response by Tehran. Houthi police officers in San'a, Yemen, on Friday. Still, Khamenei warned last week that if the U.S. attacks Iran it 'must know that our people will not surrender, and any military intervention by them will lead to irreparable consequences." And on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said it isn't clear how much room remains for diplomacy, saying in a post on X that the U.S. strikes 'will have everlasting consequences." He said 'Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Some members of the Iranian parliament have called for an immediate withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Hard-line factions in the government view building nuclear weapons as the best path forward to regain regional influence and deter threats from Israel and now the U.S. Yet with the dust still settling from the U.S. strikes, it is too soon to determine what's left of the country's nuclear program. Write to Sudarsan Raghavan at Benoit Faucon at and Summer Said at
