US to hold nuclear talks with Iran next week: Trump
US to hold nuclear talks with Iran next week: Trump
A satellite image shows airstrike craters over the underground centrifuge halls of the Natanz Enrichment Facility in Iran. Photo: Reuters
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday said the United States would hold nuclear talks with Iran next week, teasing the possibility of a deal even after boasting that recent US strikes had crippled the Islamic republic's atomic programme.
Trump credited the unprecedented US attacks with the "total obliteration" of Iran's nuclear capabilities, and said they had set the country's programme back "decades".
But leaked US intelligence cast doubt on that assessment, saying the strikes had likely delayed Tehran by just a few months.
Before the agreement of a ceasefire on Tuesday, Israel had pounded Iranian nuclear and military sites over the course of 12 days of war, while Iran launched waves of missiles at its regional arch foe in their deadliest-ever confrontation.
The United States joined the fray in support of its ally, hitting two nuclear facilities with massive bunker-buster bombs over the weekend, while a guided missile from a submarine struck a third.
"They're not going to be building bombs for a long time," said Trump, adding that the ceasefire that he declared was going "very well".
He later told reporters that Israel and Iran were "both tired, exhausted", going on to say that talks were planned with Iran "next week".
"We may sign an agreement. I don't know," he added.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had said on Tuesday his country was willing to return to negotiations over its nuclear programme, but that it would continue to "assert its legitimate rights" to the peaceful use of atomic energy.
Israel's military said Wednesday it was "still early" to assess the damage the war caused to Iran's nuclear programme.
"I believe we have delivered a significant hit to the nuclear programme, and I can also say that we have delayed it by several years," said Israeli military spokesman Effie Defrin.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei acknowledged to Al Jazeera that its "nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that's for sure".
But US media on Tuesday cited people familiar with a Defense Intelligence Agency report as saying the American strikes did not fully eliminate Iran's centrifuges or enriched uranium stockpiles.
The strikes sealed off entrances to some facilities without destroying underground buildings, according to the report.
Israel had said its bombing campaign, which began on June 13, was aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, an ambition Tehran has consistently denied.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an address to the nation after the ceasefire, announced that "we have thwarted Iran's nuclear project".
"And if anyone in Iran tries to rebuild it, we will act with the same determination, with the same intensity, to foil any attempt," he said. (AFP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
37 minutes ago
- RTHK
Russian, Iranian defence chiefs attend Qingdao meeting
Russian, Iranian defence chiefs attend Qingdao meeting Defence Minister Dong Jun meet with his Shanghai Cooperation Organisation counterparts in Qingdao. Photo: Reuters China has hosted defence ministers from Iran and Russia for a meeting in its eastern seaside city of Qingdao against the backdrop of war in the Middle East and a summit of Nato countries in Europe that agreed to boost military spending. Beijing has long sought to present the 10-member Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) as a counterweight to Western-led power blocs and has pushed to strengthen collaboration between its member countries in politics, security, trade and science. The Qingdao meeting of the organisation's top defence officials comes as a fledgling ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds after 12 days of fighting between the arch-foes. It is also being held as Nato members agreed to ramp up their defence spending to satisfy US President Donald Trump in their meeting in The Hague. Defence Minister Dong Jun framed the meeting of officials in Qingdao, home to a major Chinese naval base, as a counterweight to a world in "chaos and instability". "As momentous changes of the century accelerate, unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise," Dong said as he welcomed defence chiefs from Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Belarus and elsewhere on Wednesday. "Hegemonic, domineering and bullying acts severely undermine the international order." Dong urged his counterparts to "take more robust actions to jointly safeguard the environment for peaceful development". He called for efforts to enhance coordination within multilateral frameworks such as the United Nations and the SCO, defend international fairness and justice, and uphold global strategic stability. India's Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said SCO members should "collectively aspire to fulfil the aspirations and expectations of our people as well as tackle today's challenges". "The world we live in is undergoing a drastic transformation," he said in comments posted by his office on X. "Globalisation, which once brought us closer together, has been losing momentum." Meeting Dong on the sidelines of the summit, Russian Defence Minister Andrei Belousov hailed ties between the two countries as being "at an unprecedentedly high level". "Friendly relations between our countries maintain upward dynamics of development in all directions," he said. (AFP/Xinhua)
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Trump's risky Iran bet aims for political dividends at home
During Donald Trump's first term, he made clear that he wanted his foreign policy to be as unpredictable as possible, stating: 'I don't want them to know what I'm thinking.' With the United States' recent attack on Iran, Trump certainly kept everyone in suspense. While US enemies may not have known what Trump was thinking, the problem was that neither US allies nor US legislators knew, either. Trump apparently did not bother to inform his own vice-president, J D Vance, when he had made the decision. Trump has portrayed this as a strength. He sees himself as the only one capable of getting certain things done in foreign policy because his unpredictability and risk-taking behavior give him more leverage. But thus far he has had fewer successes than wins with this approach. His dalliance with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Trump's first term only resulted in the acceleration of North Korea's nuclear program. His great relationship with Vladimir Putin has so far led to no concessions from Moscow regarding the war in Ukraine – even causing Trump to effectively give up trying to resolve that crisis, at least for now. In Trump's second term, his MAGA base has been a bit more divided than in his first. On the issue of tariffs, key Republican senators begged him to backpedal, due to concerns that the new tariffs would be catastrophic for the US economy – improving the economy having been one of the issues that propelled him to victory. Yet he went ahead with the tariffs anyway, as some members of his base were in support. With the Middle East crisis, Trump supporters appeared to be mostly against the US getting involved in a foreign conflict. 'No more wars' is a common slogan on the campaign trail. In the lead-up to the US strikes, key leaders in the MAGA movement criticized the idea of the US getting involved in the conflict. Right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson told hawkish Senator Ted Cruz that Cruz should know far more about the regime that the senator wanted to topple. Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and Representative Marjorie Taylor Green also called for the US to stay out of the conflict. Before the attacks, a YouGov poll showed that 60% of Americans did not want the US to get involved in the conflict, which has since increased to 80%. However when asked more specifically about support for US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, as many as 94% of MAGA Republicans gave their approval. Trump also believes he can sell the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as a huge win, making good on his promise to eradicate Iran's nuclear programme. The US intelligence community takes a different view of their efficacy, but Trump has rejected this. Trump took an early victory lap, claiming that Iran's nuclear programme had been 'completely destroyed.' It was arguably comparable to George W Bush's 'mission accomplished' announcement in May 2003, after Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was ousted by US-led forces. Bush's approval ratings were as high as 70% in the immediate aftermath, but had plunged by 40 points by 2008 after five years of fighting the Iraqi insurgency that emerged in Hussein's absence. Trump seems to be revelling in taking more risks and being more unpredictable. As he has become increasingly bold in his second term, he has been more willing to test the loyalty of his base when they don't agree with his instincts. Though the isolationist wing of Maga has been critical, Trump assumes that his base will unite and rally around him. Trump was more careful not to betray his base in his first term. Trump had ordered strikes on Iran in 2019, but backed down at the last minute. But now he has gone so far as to suggest the door may be open to regime change in Tehran. With the ceasefire now in place (at least in theory), Trump is heralding his action as a huge win. Iran has backed down after a limited attack on its nuclear facilities. Just weeks ago, the US seemed less relevant in the Middle East, and more likely to follow Israel's instructions than the other way around. With Trump's confidence growing, it is now Trump who is telling Israel that he is not happy. For Trump, the risks involved were huge. There may appear to be the potential for some short-term domestic political gains if the ceasefire holds. But Trump may not have thought through the long-term implications of his decision on stability in the Middle East more generally, or what voters will think about his foreign policy gambles when the next election rolls around. Natasha Lindstaedt is a professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Obliteration myth: no end, new beginning for Iran's nuke quest
US President Donald Trump's triumphant announcement that the US military, in coordination with Israeli intelligence, had successfully 'obliterated' Iran's underground Fordow nuclear facility has sparked a cascade of contradictions among US intelligence circles, regional analysts and global observers. Yet again, the Trump administration has chosen rhetorical bravado over forensic clarity. At the heart of the issue lies not only a paradox of perception—between military claims and verifiable reality—but also a larger geopolitical recalibration involving the strategic stakes of the US, Israel, Iran and China. Most crucially, a growing body of satellite and intelligence analysis casts serious doubt on whether the so-called super bunker buster bombs deployed, known as Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), achieved any of the irreversible damage Trump claims. Fordow is one of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear facilities, buried under 80 meters of rock and reinforced concrete. Its strategic design makes it exceedingly difficult to destroy through air strikes alone. The MOPs, originally designed to penetrate hardened underground bunkers like those in North Korea, were deployed in the June 22 strikes. However, military experts caution that even MOPs have limitations, particularly when their deployment is rushed and unverified by third-party intelligence on target movements and pre-emptive evacuations. In the days leading up to the strike, satellite imagery from commercial and military sources showed large convoys of trucks entering and exiting the Fordow site, consistent with the removal of high-value equipment, sensitive documents and potentially enriched uranium stockpiles. These movements were picked up by analysts across multiple agencies, including within the US Department of Defense and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), though the latter has since been sidelined politically and diplomatically. If, as these reports suggest, Iran had already cleared out the most vital components of its nuclear operations, then the US strike—no matter how visually dramatic—would have hit an emptied facility, inflicting symbolic rather than strategic damage. In contrast to Trump's chest-thumping claims of 'obliteration,' the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has provided a far more measured analysis: Iran's nuclear program has been 'delayed' rather than destroyed. According to DIA officials cited in classified briefings referenced in media reports, Fordow's damage was partial, possibly confined to the outer layers or access tunnels, and did not impact core centrifuge halls that had likely been decommissioned prior to the strike. Worse still, the attack may have inadvertently strengthened Iran's resolve to pursue nuclear deterrence. Historically, nations under attack have accelerated—not abandoned—nuclear development. Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Gaddafi and even North Korea after the US invasion of Iraq all responded by doubling down on nuclear research. What makes this episode even more surreal is Trump's subsequent offer to reopen diplomatic ties with Iran. Within days of the Fordow strike, Trump floated the idea that Iran and the US could be 'great friends' again, bizarrely suggesting that the bombing of critical infrastructure could be a precursor to peace. This behavior aligns with Trump's broader pattern of narcissistic foreign policy-making—driven not by strategic goals but by theatrical optics and a craving for accolades, including the elusive Nobel Peace Prize he has long coveted. But such overtures ring hollow. Diplomacy cannot be built on the smoldering ruins of nuclear sites, especially when there is no third-party verification mechanism in place. The IAEA, which should be the cornerstone of verification and trust-building, has been reduced to a bystander. Following the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and Israel's continuous skepticism of the agency's impartiality, Iran's trust in the IAEA has evaporated. In Tehran's view, the IAEA is no longer a neutral body but a Western-aligned instrument of pressure. Thus, any renewed inspections—particularly after Israeli intelligence allegedly infiltrated Fordow—are highly unlikely to be welcomed. The era of voluntary transparency in Iran's nuclear policy is effectively over. While Trump postures and the Pentagon parses impact reports, China and the US remain locked in their focus on Iran—each for strategic but diverging reasons. For Washington, Iran is a potential nuclear flashpoint, a theater to project power and a testbed for its deterrence credibility. For Beijing, Iran is not a threat but a partner—economically vital and strategically indispensable to its long-term Eurasian vision. Iran's geographic position at the crossroads of the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and the Indian Ocean gives it outsized importance in China's energy diversification and trade routes. Beijing's consistent opposition to sanctions and preference for diplomacy positions it as a more reliable interlocutor for Tehran, especially in the wake of Western strikes and diplomatic betrayals. This contrast reinforces the global perception that China offers a more stable and long-term strategic alternative, while US policies remain volatile and often transactional. If Trump's intent was to isolate Iran and diminish its regional and global ties, the reality may be the opposite: His military aggression risks pushing Iran further into China's strategic orbit, where mutual distrust of the West fosters tighter cooperation. In the final analysis, the so-called obliteration of Fordow is more political theater than military victory. Without third-party verification, without a diplomatic follow-through and with Iran's strategic assets likely evacuated before the strike, Trump's operation appears to have achieved little beyond headlines. Instead of closing the nuclear chapter with Iran, it has reopened an even more volatile one—where trust has eroded, verification is impossible and geopolitical alignments are shifting in ways that may haunt US policymakers for years to come. China and the US remain locked in their focus on Iran, but their approaches could not be more different: one seeks dominance through disruption, the other influence through persistence. In this sense, the strike on Fordow may well be the end that is not the end—just another beginning in the long and dangerous nuclear imbroglio of the Middle East. Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN studies, International Islamic University Malaysia . Luthfy Hamzah is senior research fellow, Strategic Pan Indo Pacific Arena, Kuala Lumpur
