Trump suggests US would strike again if Iran rebuilt nuclear programme
THE HAGUE, June 25 (Reuters) - Asked if the United States would strike again if Iran rebuilt its nuclear enrichment programme, U.S. President Donald Trump said: "Sure."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain will need Trump's permission to use new nuclear bombs
Britain will need permission from Donald Trump to deploy any tactical nuclear weapons from its new fighter jets. The Government has agreed to purchase 12 F-35A fighter jets from the US, meaning British aircraft will carry nuclear warheads for the first time since the Cold War. The Telegraph, however, understands that there is no intention for the UK to develop its own sovereign nuclear bomb capability and they will therefore have to purchase the B61-12 thermo bombs that the planes carry from the US. Under Nato's nuclear sharing arrangements any of the US's B-61 weapons carried by Nato allies remain under US custody. For a nuclear mission to be conducted by a Nato country approval must be granted by the alliance's Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) with final sign off from both the US president and British Prime Minister. An RAF source asked why the UK could not have negotiated a deal which did not leave it so reliant on the US for permission to protect itself. 'This is good we are talking to Nato, but there is a question over whether the UK would like its own sovereign airborne capability,' he said. 'Can't they negotiate a new deal with the Americans which explores this?' It has not been decided where the B-61 weapons purchased from the US would be based once on British soil. The US is already planning to station nuclear weapons at its US air base, RAF Lakenheath, according to Pentagon documents. Another possibility would be to house them at the neighbouring British base RAF Marham. An RAF source added that from a UK perspective it made sense to store the weapons at a British base, as they will be British owned. The last UK warplanes capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons were Tornados, which deployed the British-made WE177 nuclear bomb. This was retired in 1998 after the Iron Curtain had fallen and it was widely felt that Russia was no longer a threat. Other sovereign bombs included the Blue Danube, the first UK-built nuclear deterrent, which was carried by V-bombers. In 1956 a Vickers Valiant became the first RAF aircraft to drop the British atomic bomb during a test at the Maralinga range in Australia. However, as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which strives for a world without nuclear weapons, the UK has not invested in its own tactical nuclear weapon arsenal since 1998. Trident, the continuous at-sea deterrent, is the only nuclear weapon system operated by the UK that has a day-to-day operation independent of the US. It consists of four Vanguard-class submarines which can carry up to 16 warheads each. France's nuclear deterrent, which is believed to contain an estimated 300 nuclear weapons, under its 'force de dissuasion' programme, with sea and air-based launch capabilities, is also currently independent from Nato. The US has long guaranteed Europe's safety with an arsenal of around 100 nuclear missiles, many of them stationed in a US military base in Germany.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I won't take lessons in economics from clueless Labour
Reform believes Britain can once again be a prosperous and powerful country. Unlike the entire political establishment, which has resigned itself to managed decline, we know a remarkable recovery is tough, but possible. The path to getting there requires halting the unprecedented exodus of the country's biggest taxpayers from the country, and indeed persuading more to come here. To create jobs, wealth and apply their broad shoulders to the tax burden. It also requires repairing the social contract. For too long those who set their alarm clocks and go to work have been getting a raw deal. Decades of foolish policy from witless and gutless politicians has resulted in tens of thousands of the wealthiest people in Britain fleeing the country. According to the Adam Smith Institute, this will cost £115 billion of growth over the next decade, and tens of billions in lost tax revenue. So, we announced a new policy yesterday, introducing the Britannia Card. We will make the UK attractive to the world's wealthiest people. But they must pay a £250,000 landing fee for the privilege of being here. All of those fees will be pooled and distributed directly to the 2.5 million lowest paid full-time workers in the country. This will make us competitive on the global stage, the entrepreneurs and wealth creators we want will make the UK their home. While they won't pay tax on foreign assets, they will, beyond the landing fee, still pay an average of £120,000 per year in direct taxation on UK earnings, and much more in VAT, Stamp Duty and (via their companies) Corporation Tax. Based on conservative assumptions of uptake of the card, the lowest paid full-time workers will receive a tax free annual payment of £600 to £1000. The rest of the country will benefit from the billions more these international job creators will pay in tax, beyond the landing fee. The economy benefits because those 'Britannia dividends' paid to workers will be spent in local cafes, high streets and cinemas. Those who earn the least have the highest propensity to spend. Nigel Farage is the first political leader in decades to have the courage and wisdom to say that Britain needs the wealthy to have any chance of getting out of the deep fiscal hole it's in. Non-doms have been vilified, firstly by Tories and now by Labour. According to Bloomberg, they represent 0.1 per cent of the population and pay 1 per cent of the tax. They're literally the last people you'd want to chase away if you cared about our country. The announcement was met by comical howls from the Tories. The clowns who managed in fourteen years the astonishing feat of hiking the tax burden on working people to the highest level in 70 years, tripling the national debt to £40,000 per person, and leaving public services on the brink of collapse. All at the same time. They have been appropriately rewarded for this with electoral oblivion. Labour, meanwhile, claim our policy will 'cost the treasury money'. Wrong. Reeves is the genius who hiked the Capital Gains Tax rate in her Budget, and – along with the woeful OBR – claimed it would raise billions in extra taxes. We now know the opposite has happened. It cost the exchequer billions, and she's borrowing that money as a result. She will then soak everyone else with higher taxes to make up for her incompetence. The same thing is happening with the non-dom policy. The OBR said that scrapping it would raise billions, but assumed that just 1.5 per cent of the non-dom population would leave each year. Just 10 months in and 10 per cent have left already. Once that hits 25 per cent (which it will in short order), revenue for the taxpayer will decline. That's why the Treasury are sounding the alarm, and she will almost certainly U-turn. I started a tech company from scratch, grew it to tens of millions in revenue and sold it for hundreds of millions. I know what it means to take risk, the sacrifice required to create wealth, and I know how people in that situation think. Not a single member of the Labour cabinet has started a business, or had a consequential job in the private sector. That's why they keep announcing policies straight from the student union. Time is running out. We need competence back in Westminster. It won't be easy, and we will need more than one term to do it. But make no mistake, Reform will restore this country to prosperity.
Spectator
39 minutes ago
- Spectator
Starmer may regret bringing forward Trump's state visit
One of the most notable features of Keir Starmer's otherwise undistinguished premiership is the bromance that he seems to have formed with King Charles. Both men seem to have a shared sense of moral values and a reticence of character that appears to have served them well in what, up until now, has been a harmonious working relationship. However, the first serious cracks in their partnership might be about to appear, and they come courtesy of none other than Donald Trump. It was announced earlier this year that the President would be hosted in Britain on a state visit, as he had been in 2019. The major reason for this unprecedented boon being offered was to obtain preferential treatment when it came to trade deals and tariffs, and it appears that playing on both Trump's Anglophilia and sincere love of the royal family has been successful. Charles is said to be appalled by Trump's musings that Canada should be turned into America's 51st state However, a difficulty has now ensued. It has been reported – not least by Trump, who has gleefully called it a 'fest' – that the state visit will be taking place relatively soon, in September. This is against the wishes of the King, who would have preferred that if such a visitation needed to take place at all, it would have been a relatively quiet and informal occasion, rather than the full bells-and-whistles pageantry that such a state visit demands. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is that Charles, who recently conducted a successful trip to Canada, is said to be appalled by Trump's musings that the country – which still honours the King as its sovereign – should be turned into America's 51st state. In the pointed and decidedly political address that he made when he opened Ottawa's parliament last month, Charles declared that the country should stay 'strong and free'. He said Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination, and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the government is determined to protect. This has been echoed in typically wishy-washy fashion by Starmer, who said last week that 'Canada is an independent, sovereign nation, and quite right too'. Yet there are murmurings from Buckingham Palace that hosting Trump goes against this rhetoric and that a state visit should have been delayed in order to allow the President to tone down some of his more inflammatory remarks. This has not happened, and the formal document that allows for the state visit to take place, the 'manu regia', was delivered to the White House last week after being signed by the King. The King had supposedly wished to meet Trump informally first, with the sop that this encounter would allow the two to plan the most successful state visit together. In his invitation to Trump in February, he supposedly wrote, 'that is why I would find it helpful for us to be able to discuss, together, a range of options'. These desires, however, appear to have been steamrollered so that Trump can visit the country once again in a few months and so that Starmer can have his photo opportunities, playing the international statesman once more. If this comes at the expense of what has been, up until now, a warm and fruitful partnership with the King, then he should reflect on the wisdom – or otherwise – of jeopardising a very different kind of special relationship. As the likes of Blair, Johnson and Truss all learnt, an aggrieved monarch is not a happy one, and the consequences can be regrettable indeed.
