Trump calls for Iran's ‘unconditional surrender' and threatens its supreme leader

Boston Globe

5 hours ago

Trump's increasingly martial tone -- a sharp reversal from his announced confidence two weeks ago that a nuclear deal with Iran was easily within reach -- came only hours after he cut short his attendance at the Group of 7 summit of industrialized nations in Alberta, Canada, saying he needed to return to Washington to deal with the situation in the Middle East.
Advertisement
His immediate decision is whether to deploy America's largest conventional weapon -- the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator -- to attack Fordo, Iran's deepest nuclear enrichment site.
While Trump suggested that the United States had control of Iran's skies, the only visible combatant has been Israel, which has been using U.S.-made fighter jets. Israeli officials have said that they have been able to destroy much of Iran's air defenses.
Advertisement
In one of his messages Tuesday, Trump threatened Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying 'we know exactly where' he is. But he added that 'we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least for now.'
He added, 'Our patience is growing thin.'
Killing foreign leaders violates executive orders signed by a series of presidents dating to Gerald Ford. The operative one states: 'No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.'
In his own social media post, Vice President JD Vance also hinted that the United States could step up its engagement. Vance said that Iran has no need for nuclear fuel enriched above the level needed for commercial power. Trump, he wrote, 'has shown remarkable restraint,' but 'may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment.'
'That decision ultimately belongs to the president,' Vance wrote.
The vice president acknowledged the sentiments of some in the Republican Party who have called for staying out of conflicts in the Middle East, writing 'of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy,' a period of time that encompasses Trump's first term and the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations. But, he added, 'I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.'
It remains to be seen whether Trump will decide that the United States should join Israel's efforts, with American offensive capability. But the decision to launch a full-on attack on Iran's facilities would easily be in the gray area between the president's powers as commander in chief and the Constitution's mandate that only Congress can declare war.
Advertisement
Officially, the United States has said nothing about joining offensive operations with Israel. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said only that U.S. forces were maintaining a 'defensive posture.'
It was also unclear whether Trump, who has talked repeatedly about seeking a diplomatic solution, now believes the time for negotiation is over. One senior official indicated Tuesday that there may be a short round of 'coercive diplomacy,' in which Iran is given a brief period of time to agree to the terms that Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, presented two weeks ago. That called for a gradual end to all enrichment on Iranian soil, a condition the Iranians said publicly they would reject.
But on his flight back to Washington from Canada early Tuesday morning, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he was not in the mood to continue talks with Iran, which were scheduled for last Sunday before Israel began mounting its attacks.
Trump said that he was seeking a result that was 'better than a cease-fire' between Israel and Iran. Asked what would qualify, he said 'an end, a real end, not a cease-fire, a real end.'
It was also unclear what Trump meant when he demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender.' The United States has not declared war on Iran, and it has said it is not pursuing regime change there, though in Trump's first term many of his aides talked openly of trying to speed the collapse of its government.
Iran has sent indications it is still willing to negotiate, but only if Israel's attacks on Tehran, the capital, and nuclear and missile sites cease.
Advertisement
The Israelis have shown no interest in letting up. And many Iran analysts believe Iranian leadership, shocked by the killing of many top military leaders and scientists, would likely not reverse its insistence on retaining enrichment capability, even if the alternative is continued assaults on its spread-out nuclear facilities.
Their time may be running out. By deploying the refueling KC-135 and KC-46 aircraft to air bases in Italy, Spain, Germany and Greece, U.S. officials said that the Air Force was building an 'air bridge' in Europe should installations in the Middle East come under Iranian attack.
Deploying the aircraft closer to the Middle East also provides the Pentagon more options if it needs to defend bases in the region, officials said.
'Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these deployments are intended to enhance our defensive positions in the region,' Hegseth said on social platform X on Monday.
But the moves also put in place an elaborate refueling network for B-2 bombers, should Trump order them to fly the nearly 7,000 miles from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to attack the Fordo site. In addition to the refueling tankers, the Pentagon is deploying F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighters to the Middle East.
Fordo is Iran's most heavily fortified enrichment center, built deep inside a mountain to protect it from an attack. Only the U.S. military has the 30,000-pound bomb capable of even reaching it.
Its size -- 20 feet long and 30,000 pounds -- means that only the American B-2 stealth bomber can carry it.
On Capitol Hill, the president's public flirtation with joining Israel's bombing campaign has reawakened a long-dormant debate about clawing back congressional power to declare war.
Advertisement
In the House, a Democrat and a Republican teamed up on Tuesday to introduce a resolution that would require congressional approval before U.S. troops could engage in offensive attacks against Iran.
The measure by Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., underscored a view held by many in Congress that Trump should not be able to decide on his own whether the United States wades deeper into the conflict.
Thirteen additional Democrats signed on to the resolution, but no Republicans were so far supporting the effort.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., on Monday introduced a similar resolution.
Both efforts face long odds, given Republican reluctance to challenge Trump's power. But with some lawmakers in both parties openly resisting further U.S. involvement, they are likely to prompt a vibrant debate. The measures enjoy a special status that will compel Congress to vote on them one way or the other in the coming days.
Still, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has, so far, been successful in deflecting efforts to force Republican members to take any vote that would require them to challenge Trump's authority, and he could seek a procedural solution that would allow him to circumvent a vote on a war declaration.
In the Senate, defense hawks cheered Trump's bellicose posture.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reiterated his stance that he supported U.S. involvement in the conflict against Iran.
'I want us to go all in to help Israel destroy their nuclear programs,' he said Tuesday, adding that he had spoken to Trump on Monday evening about his views.
Advertisement
When asked what role Congress should have in authorizing offensive strikes in Iran, Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, deferred to Trump.
'I have total faith and confidence in the president of the United States,' he said in an interview Tuesday.
This article originally appeared in