Trump lambasts Khamenei, says he'd bomb Iran if nuclear activities restart
President Donald Trump has hit out at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's claim that Iran won its recent 12-day war with Israel, also saying the United States will 'absolutely' bomb the country again if it pursues nuclear weapons.
The US president launched a torrent of abuse at Iran's Supreme Leader on his Truth Social platform on Friday, claiming he had saved Khamenei from 'A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH' and accusing him of 'blatantly and foolishly' lying when he claimed 'victory' in the war the previous day.
In his first sortie since the Israel-Iran war ended with a ceasefire earlier this week, Khamenei had also said Iran 'slapped America in the face' by launching missiles at a major US base in Qatar following US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz.
In Friday's post, Trump said he had demanded Israel pull back from 'the final knockout'.
'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, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life,' he said.
The question of whether US attacks destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities is moot – a leaked intelligence report contradicted Trump's account of events, suggesting the military's strikes had set the country back by mere months.
The US president said that Khamenei's comments, which he described as 'a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust', had led him to drop work 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'.
Future of nuclear programme
Trump's rant against Khamenei came on the back of bellicose comments earlier that day at a White House news conference. Asked whether he would consider new air strikes if the recent attacks had not succeeded in ending Iran's nuclear weapons programme, Trump said, 'Sure, without question, absolutely.'
He said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites.
But Iran has approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, a move widely seen as a direct response to the strikes.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated on Friday that Tehran may reject any request by the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites.
'[IAEA Director General] Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,' Araghchi said on X. 'Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.'
Grossi said on Wednesday that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority, as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on June 13.
Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz indicated on Friday that his country might still be on a war footing with Iran, saying he had instructed the military to prepare an enforcement plan against the country.
The plan 'includes maintaining Israel's air superiority, preventing nuclear advancement and missile production, and responses to Iran for supporting terrorist activities against Israel', Katz said.
Katz said on Thursday that Israel had wanted to 'eliminate' Khamenei and would not have required US permission to do so.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
26 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump says Gaza ceasefire possible ‘within the next week', gives no details
United States President Donald Trump said he believes a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas could be reached within a week. Trump came out with the surprise comment while speaking to reporters on Friday, saying he was hopeful after speaking to some of the people involved in trying to get a truce. 'I think it's close. I just spoke to some of the people involved,' Trump said. 'We think within the next week we're going to get a ceasefire,' the president said, without revealing who he had been in contact with. Al Jazeera's Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman in Jordan, said Trump's comment will be 'welcome news' to the starved and bombed population of Gaza, but she also cautioned that there are 'no negotiations at this moment happening anywhere in the region'. 'What we do know is that talk of a ceasefire increased exponentially after the ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Israel does not want to talk about ending the war. In fact, the Israeli prime minister would be risking a lot if he did,' Odeh said. But, she added, there is an understanding, according to many reports, that Netanyahu would have to agree to some sort of ceasefire in exchange for normalisation deals with Arab states, which the Trump administration has promoted. Hamas, on the other hand, requires that Israel stop its war on Gaza and for the Israeli military to withdraw from areas it seized in Gaza after breaking the last ceasefire in March. 'Hamas also wants US guarantees that negotiations would continue and that Israel wouldn't break the ceasefire again if more time was needed for negotiations,' Odeh added. Trump's ceasefire prediction comes at a time of mounting killings by Israeli forces in Gaza and growing international condemnation of Israel's war amid the latest revelation that soldiers said they were ordered to shoot unarmed Palestinian civilians seeking humanitarian aid in the territory. Authorities in Gaza said the report by the Haaretz media outlet that Israeli commanders ordered the deliberate shooting of starving Palestinians was further proof of Israel's 'war crimes' in the war-torn territory. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz have rejected the report of commanders targeting civilians, Gaza's Health Ministry has reported that almost 550 Palestinians have been killed near US- and Israel-backed aid distribution points in Gaza since late May. 'People are being killed simply trying to feed themselves and their families,' United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Friday. 'The search for food must never be a death sentence,' he said. Medical charity Doctors Without Borders (also known by its French acronym MSF) branded the situation in Gaza as 'slaughter masquerading as humanitarian aid'. A spokesperson for the office of Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said they had no information to share about a possible ceasefire breakthrough in Gaza. Witkoff helped former US President Joe Biden's aides broker a ceasefire and captive release agreement in Gaza shortly before Trump took office in January. But the truce was broken by Israel in March when it launched a wave of surprise bombing attacks across the territory. Israeli officials said that only military action would result in the return of captives held in Gaza, and imposed a blockade on food, water, medicine and fuel entering the territory that led to widespread starvation among the 2.1 million population. Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer is scheduled to visit Washington next week for talks with Trump administration officials on Gaza, Iran and a possible White House visit by Netanyahu, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 1,220
Here is how things stand on Saturday, June 28: Fighting Ukraine's military has said it struck four Russian Su-34 warplanes at the Marinovka base outside Russia's city of Volgograd, some 900km (550 miles) from the Ukrainian border. A Russian missile attack has killed at least five people and wounded more than 20 in Samar in Ukraine's southeast, in the second strike on the industrial city in three days. Russian troops have captured the village of Nova Kruhlyakivka in Ukraine's eastern Kharkiv region, Russia's state news agency TASS reported. A Russian attack has damaged an 'important power facility' in Ukraine's southern Kherson region, causing power cuts in some settlements in the region, regional governor Oleksandr Prokudin said. A Ukrainian drone attack on Russia's Kursk region injured a war correspondent from Chinese news outlet Phoenix TV, Russian authorities said, as they urged the United Nations to respond to the incident. Ukraine's air force said it downed 359 out of 363 drones and six of eight missiles launched by Russia in an overnight attack. Russia's drone production jumped by 16.9 percent in May compared with the previous month, data from a think tank close to the government showed, after President Vladimir Putin called for output to be stepped up. Ceasefire deal United States President Donald Trump said he thinks something will happen in Russia's war in Ukraine that would get it 'settled', citing his recent call with Putin but offering no other details. Putin said relations between Russia and the US were beginning to stabilise, attributing the improvement to efforts by President Trump. Putin reiterated that he had 'great respect' for the US leader and was willing to meet him. Putin also said Moscow was ready to hold a new round of peace negotiations with Ukraine, potentially in Istanbul, although the time and venue have yet to be agreed. NATO Lithuania has notified the UN that it is leaving the treaty banning antipersonnel landmines. It joins Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Poland – all NATO and European Union members bordering Russia – in withdrawing from the treaty, citing the increased military danger from their Russian neighbour. The Kremlin said Estonia's stated readiness to host NATO allies' US-made F-35A stealth jets, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, posed a direct threat to Moscow. Putin said Russia was looking to cut its military expenditure from next year, contrasting that with NATO's plan to raise its collective spending goal to 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the next 10 years. Sanctions Senator Ron Wyden, the top Senate Finance Committee Democrat, pressed US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to commit to enforcing Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia and to clarify comments about Russia rejoining an international bank payments network. Wyden also sought answers on how the US-Ukraine critical minerals deal and investment agreement would help improve Ukraine's post-war security and not benefit any entity or country that aided Russia's war effort. Ukraine plans to ask the EU to sanction Bangladeshi entities it says are importing wheat taken from Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia, after its warnings to Dhaka failed to stop the trade, a top Ukrainian diplomat in South Asia said.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What cases did the US Supreme Court decide at the end of its 2024 term?
The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest term with a host of blockbuster decisions, touching on everything from healthcare coverage to school reading lists. On Friday, the court issued the final decisions of the 2024 term before it takes several months of recess. The nine justices on its bench will reconvene in October. But before their departure, the justices made headlines. In a major victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the six-person conservative majority decided to limit the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide. Trump has long denounced court injunctions as an attack on his executive authority. In two other rulings, the Supreme Court's conservative majority again banded together. One decision allowed parents to opt out of school materials that include LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the go-ahead to Texas to place barriers to prevent youth from viewing online pornography. But a decision on healthcare access saw some conservative justices align with their three left-wing colleagues. Here is an overview of their final rulings of the 2024 term. Court upholds preventive care requirements In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saw its usual ideological divides fracture. Three conservative justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined with the court's liberal branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a six-to-three ruling. At stake was the ability of a government task force to determine what kinds of preventive healthcare the country's insurance providers had to cover. It was the latest case to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation passed under former President Barack Obama to expand healthcare access. This case focused on a section of the act that allowed a panel of health experts – under the Department of Health and Human Services – to determine what preventive services should be covered at no cost. A group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses had challenged the legality of that task force, though. They argued that the expert panel was a violation of the Appointments Clause, a section of the Constitution that requires certain political appointees to be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate. The group had previously secured an injunction against the task force's decision that HIV prevention medications be covered as preventive care. That specific injunction was not weighed in the Supreme Court's decision. But writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh affirmed that the task force was constitutional, because it was made up of 'inferior officers' who did not need Senate approval. Court gives nod to Texas's age restrictions on porn Several states, including Texas, require users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, with the aim of shielding minors from inappropriate material. But Texas's law came under the Supreme Court's microscope on Friday, in a case called Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton. The Free Speech Coalition is a nonprofit that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They sued Texas's attorney general, Paxton, arguing that the age-verification law would dampen First Amendment rights, which protect the right to free expression, free association and privacy. The plaintiffs noted the risks posed by sharing personally identifying information online, including the possibility that identifying information like birthdates and sensitive data could be leaked. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, warned that Texas's law 'robs people of anonymity'. Writing for the Supreme Court's conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that 'submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise' of First Amendment rights. But, he added, 'adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification' altogether. The majority upheld Texas's law. Court affirms children can withdraw from LGBTQ school material The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority also continued its streak of religious freedom victories, with a decision in Mahmoud v Taylor. That case centred on the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, where books portraying LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary school curricula. One text, for example, was a picture book called Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl mustering the courage to give a Valentine to a female classmate. Another book, titled Pride Puppy, follows a child searching for her lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride. Parents of children in the school district objected to the material on religious grounds, and some books, like Pride Puppy, were eventually withdrawn. But the board eventually announced it would refuse to allow parents to opt out of the approved material, on the basis that it would create disruptions in the learning environment. Some education officials also argued that allowing kids to opt out of LGBTQ material would confer a stigma on the people who identify as part of that community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life. In the majority's decision, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the education board's policy 'conveys that parents' religious views are not welcome in the 'fully inclusive environment' that the Board purports to foster'. 'The curriculum itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender,' Alito wrote. Court limits the use of nationwide injunctions Arguably, the biggest decision of the day was another ruling decided by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. In the case Trump v CASA, the Trump administration had appealed the use of nationwide injunctions all the way up to the highest court in the land. At stake was an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office for his second term. That order sought to whittle down the concept of birthright citizenship, a right conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Previously, birthright citizenship had applied to nearly everyone born on US soil: Regardless of their parents' nationality, the child would receive US citizenship. But Trump has denounced that application of birthright citizenship as too broad. In his executive order, he put restrictions on birthright citizenship depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants. Legal challenges erupted as soon as the executive order was published, citing Supreme Court precedent that upheld birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the executive order from taking effect. The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh the merits of Trump's order on birthright citizenship. But it did evaluate a Trump administration petition arguing that the nationwide injunctions were instances of judicial overreach. The conservative supermajority sided with Trump, saying that injunctions should generally not be universal but instead should focus on relief for the specific plaintiffs at hand. One possible exception, however, would be for class action lawsuits. Amy Coney Barrett, the court's latest addition and a Trump appointee, penned the majority's decision. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.'
