&w=3840&q=100)
‘Trump won't win Nobel Peace Prize...': Russia warns of global fallout as US strikes push Iran conflict to new heights
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, said on Sunday that U.S. President Donald Trump had started a new war for the U.S. by attacking Iran. read more
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, said on Sunday that U.S. President Donald Trump had started a new war for the U.S. by attacking Iran.
U.S. forces struck Iran's three main nuclear sites, Trump said late on Saturday, and he warned Tehran it would face more devastating attacks if it does not agree to peace.
'Trump, who came in as a peacemaker president, has started a new war for the U.S.,' Medvedev wrote on his Telegram channel, adding that 'with this kind of success, Trump won't win the Nobel Peace Prize'.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The leader of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) Leonid Slutsky said the strikes 'had no military reason for the U.S. and cannot be justified under international law'.
'The consequences of the escalation threaten to go beyond the region. Washington understands the inevitability of Tehran's response. All this brings the spiral of confrontation to a new level and increases the risks of World War III,' Slutsky, who heads the State Duma international affairs committee, wrote on Telegram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US bombs Iran nuclear facilities: Impact on stocks, bonds, oil decoded here
Following Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear sites on 13 June, the US bombed three nuclear sites in Iran over the weekend. This military strike was widely anticipated by the market after Mr. Trump's recent warnings. The conflict could escalate further, as the US and Israel may push for the fall of Khamenei's regime in Iran, as it may retaliate to survive. Brent crude oil price is already up about 18 per cent in the past month, fearing escalation, but still remains below $80/bbl. Despite Iran being a heavily sanctioned country, it is estimated that Iran produces 3.0 to 4.0 million barrels of oil (world oil output of 103 million barrels last year), and it largely exports it to China. Iran warned that it may close the Strait of Hormuz (~26 per cent of oil trade), attack US military installations in the region, and take other military and diplomatic actions. We believe a large part of the impact on oil prices has already been reflected; however, oil may see a significant spike even from this level if Iran is able to choke major trade routes or Russia gets directly involved in the conflict. In the medium-to-long term, the supply response may help bring down oil prices, in our view. Wider Geopolitical Conflict Possible but Probability is Low: Russia is already fully occupied with Ukraine and has withdrawn its troops from Syria, resulting in the downfall of Bashar al-Assad's regime, which Russia long supported. The possibility of China or other Middle Eastern countries directly involving themselves in the conflict is also low, in our view. Impact on Indian Financial Markets: India is one of the most vulnerable countries with respect to oil price movements, given our import bill in FY 2025 reached $137 billion (3.7 per cent of GDP). Nevertheless, India's susceptibility to oil prices has reduced drastically recently, given India's solid macroeconomic fundamentals. Hence, overall India's macro and financial market performance may come under pressure, but it may not deteriorate significantly. The INR has already started to come under pressure despite the Dollar Index remaining below 99 levels and closer to 52-week low levels. We expect the INR to fall further against major currencies in coming days, and RBI intervention will be keenly watched. The Indian bond market could see some yield spike, especially longer-tenure bonds, which could offer a buying opportunity, as we believe yields could settle at lower levels in the medium to long term. It is likely that global equity markets may not react much to this conflict, as policies from central banks remain well supportive, including in India. Indian equities may see some knee-jerk reaction, and sectors like defence, IT, and pharma may outperform, while banks, logistics, and interest-rate-sensitive sectors like NBFC and real estate may underperform in the near term. However, we continue to like interest-rate-sensitive names, and any major correction could offer a buying opportunity. Our positive view on gold continues. Despite escalating geopolitical concerns, the dollar hasn't seen any major safe-haven buying, which makes gold even more attractive.
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran's Strait of Hormuz Gambit
In this file photo taken on April 30, 2019, Iranian soldiers take part in the "National Persian Gulf day" in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's Parliament voted Sunday to close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow sea passage out of the Persian Gulf. If the regime does this, it will be consistent with Iran's recent behavior, which is to go for its own jugular. Iran is run by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, so the Supreme National Security Council will make the final decision. PREMIUM Iran's Strait of Hormuz Gambit Some 20% or more of the world's oil supply moves through the Strait after loading from oil terminals in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran. There's no doubt that closing the Strait would send oil prices higher, probably above $100 a barrel for a time. A risk premium for a possible closure has already bumped the oil price to the mid-$70 a barrel range since Israel launched its attacks on Iran. The world supply of oil is more diverse than it was 20 years ago, thanks in part to American frackers. Some Gulf oil can also move via pipeline from Saudi Arabia. China would be one of the biggest losers from a Hormuz shutdown, as much of its oil comes from the Gulf. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made that point on the Sunday talk shows, urging China to advise Iran against closing the Strait. Iran can certainly do some short-term damage. The shipping passage through the Strait is two miles at its narrowest and vulnerable to sea mines. Iran could harass ships with its naval forces, notably high-speed patrol boats, as well as drones and missiles from onshore. But the U.S. has ample Navy resources in the region and can clear the mines in relatively short order. Iran will also have to think about the prospect of losing its entire navy if it does close down the Strait. Former Centcom Commander Frank McKenzie predicted Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation exactly that prospect if Iran made that mistake, and Mr. Rubio said on the same program that closing the Strait 'would be a suicidal move on their part because I think the whole world would come against them if they did that.' The Hormuz threat underscores the wisdom of President Trump's decision to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Imagine if Iran had nuclear weapons and threatened to close down the Strait to leverage some geopolitical or military advantage. The Western response to clear the Strait would be a much higher risk. 'There are no planned military operations right now against Iran unless—unless they mess around and they attack American[s] or American interests,' Mr. Rubio said. 'Then they're going to have a problem. Then they're going to have a problem, and I'm not going to broadcast what those problems are.' Mr. Trump is again offering Iran's leaders a choice of negotiating peace or retaliating and inviting more harm to their country. They learned the hard way on Saturday that doubting Mr. Trump's red lines is a mistake.
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Aboard Marine One, a Phone Call and the Decision to Strike Iran
As he barreled toward a nearby airport on Marine One, before flying to Washington, Trump received a call from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. It was time to make a final decision: move forward with U.S. strikes on Iran or abort the mission. The president, who had grown convinced that diplomacy alone wouldn't prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, gave Hegseth the greenlight, according to people familiar with the matter. Hours later, B-2 bombers targeted nuclear sites in Iran, the culmination of a frenetic week of behind-the-scenes deliberations marked by covert plans to keep the operation secret. Trump and his advisers have said the strikes were a targeted campaign to impede Tehran's nuclear ambitions. But the move threatens to drag the U.S. into a broader conflagration in the Middle East, potentially further dividing Trump's political coalition. Ultimately, Trump saw the operation as a way to assert U.S. dominance. 'Our country is hot as a pistol,' Trump told The Wall Street Journal in a brief interview on Sunday. 'Six months ago, our country was cold as ice. It was dead,' he said, calling the strikes 'a great victory for our country.' Trump had been under pressure for weeks from his advisers and opposing wings of his MAGA coalition. Hawks, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, were pushing the president to take military action, while some well-known conservatives, such as Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.), warned that hitting Iran was a mistake. The hawks ultimately won out, as diplomatic efforts sputtered. Steve Witkoff, an influential Trump adviser who had long held out hope for a nuclear deal with Tehran, told the president that the Iranians were stringing the White House along. Israeli officials, meanwhile, argued that the air superiority they had established over Iran made an operation a much lower risk, administration officials said. Graham, in an interview, said he told Trump that authorizing strikes in Iran would give the U.S. an opportunity to repair damage done to America's reputation abroad after the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. 'You'll be a new sheriff in town, and this will reset our relationship with the rest of the world,' Graham said he told the president. Trump arrives at the White House on Saturday. Trump spent much of Sunday tracking news coverage of the strikes. His aides gave him a compilation of positive statements from supporters on social media, according to administration officials. He also stewed about Rep. Thomas Massie's criticism of the strikes, discussing with advisers a primary challenge against the Kentucky Republican who called the U.S. attack on Iran unconstitutional. Democrats have called the Iran strikes unlawful, arguing that Trump should have sought a War Powers Resolution from Congress before approving the military action. And they have alluded to the faulty intelligence that was a basis for the Iraq war, saying the administration failed to offer a detailed rationale for the timing of the strikes. 'We saw no evidence that Iran had made the decision to build a bomb or was actually affirmatively building the mechanism, which takes time,' said Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) on CNN's 'State of the Union.' 'So in the absence of that, you don't order a strike like this.' Trump's decision to launch U.S. strikes came after mounting frustration over the pace of negotiations with Iran, according to administration officials. The president and Witkoff, his Middle East envoy, were bullish that they could reach a nuclear deal with Iran. But in recent months, Witkoff and Trump soured on the talks as Iran continued to move ahead with its plans to build a nuclear weapon. In late May, Trump told advisers that he was convinced the Iranians were 'tapping them along,' according to a person who heard his comments. The president was leaning heavily toward moving forward with U.S. strikes by the time White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday that Trump would make a final decision over the next two weeks. Trump, frustrated by reports that he was preparing to authorize strikes, instructed Leavitt to announce the two-week timeline in part because he believed it would help obscure his plans, administration officials said. As the U.S. moved closer to an attack, Trump and his team were in regular touch with Israeli officials. He also repeatedly asked his advisers to lay out what, if anything, could go wrong with the attack, according to the officials. On Saturday, Trump's aides gathered secretly in the Situation Room, where they went over attack plans and reviewed maps of the region. Another set of B-2 planes flew from the U.S., in a ruse meant to throw off Iranian officials. Administration officials think the timing of the strikes caught Iran off guard. The backlash from Trump's political base has so far been muted, despite private misgivings from prominent supporters of the president. But some Republicans warned voter frustration could spread if the U.S. gets drawn into a sustained conflict in the region. 'If the base feels betrayed, then they'll be more apathetic during the midterms, and it will be his own undoing,' Massie said in an interview. Greene, the Georgia lawmaker, wrote on X, following the strikes: 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war.' She added in her post, 'this is not our fight.' Trump and his advisers continued to make their case publicly and privately on Sunday. In phone calls, Trump told supporters his actions align with his America First views and said he has been consistent in his goal of Iran not getting a nuclear weapon, a senior administration official said. Trump has said in recent days that he has no intention of overthrowing Iran's regime. But he appeared to signal on Sunday that he is open to that outcome. '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???' he wrote on Truth Social. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, center, at a news conference at the Pentagon on Sunday. Responding to concerns that the U.S. was entering another war abroad, Vice President JD Vance said Americans were understandably 'exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East.' 'But the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives,' he told NBC News. 'So this is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing.' Vance, however, acknowledged that further military action in Iran is possible. 'If they decide they are going to attack our troops, if they decide they are going to continue to try to build a nuclear weapon, then we are going to respond to that with overwhelming force,' he said. Iran's foreign minister on Sunday played down chances of further diplomacy, saying 'they have proved that they are not men of diplomacy and that they only understand the language of threat and force.' As a candidate in 2016, Trump was a frequent critic of the second Iraq war, which was launched by Republican President George W. Bush. During the 2024 presidential campaign, he blamed Joe Biden for allowing wars in Ukraine and Gaza to continue. In his Milwaukee convention speech, Trump said he could 'stop wars with just a telephone call.' But foreign-policy matters have already consumed much of his early months in office, as lawmakers debate his legislative priorities and some in his base are frustrated with the slow pace of deportations, a key campaign promise. Trump tried on Sunday to shift the focus back to his legislative agenda, saying in a social-media post: 'Now let's get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done.' Other top administration officials, including Vance and Hegseth, are also veterans whose experience in the war on terrorism made them skeptical of America's security role abroad. In a 2023 opinion column in The Wall Street Journal, Vance argued Trump's best foreign policy was 'not starting any wars.' Write to Tarini Parti at Josh Dawsey at Siobhan Hughes at and Alex Leary at Aboard Marine One, a Phone Call and the Decision to Strike Iran
