logo
Trump's fear of Iran becoming ‘another Libya' stalls decision on nuke site strikes for two weeks: sources

Trump's fear of Iran becoming ‘another Libya' stalls decision on nuke site strikes for two weeks: sources

New York Post6 hours ago

WASHINGTON — President Trump's wariness over bombing Iran is due in part to concerns about creating 'another Libya' if Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is toppled, administration insiders told The Post — as Trump shelves his decision for up to two weeks.
The president in recent days has specifically mentioned the oil-rich North African country's decade-long plunge into anarchy in 2011 — after the US joined a NATO bombing campaign to oust dictator Muammar Gaddafi — three sources close to the administration said.
Trump 'doesn't want it to turn into Libya,' said one insider familiar with the administration's deliberations on potentially joining Israel's airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program.
On Thursday afternoon, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the president was also biding his time before deciding whether to join Israel's strikes 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.'
Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi is expected to meet his UK, French, German, and EU counterparts in Geneva, Switzerland on Friday for talks. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff is not set to attend, Leavitt said, but noted that he's continued his own conversations with the Iranians.
6 President Trump has delayed a decision on possibly bombing Iran's nuclear sites.
AFP via Getty Images
One of The Post's sources said they directly heard the president say in private he was worried about Iran becoming like Libya before Israel began its aerial assault on Iran.
Other sources were briefed by those who had heard him say so following the start of the conflict last week, with one source close to the administration saying he also mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq.
A fifth source lacked direct knowledge of the Libya remarks, but was briefed on Trump's considerations, said the president seems most inclined to order limited airstrikes to finish off Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz with 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs that can't be carried on Israeli jets.
'Libya was a much more extended kind of bombing commitment, and it ended up being regime change,' the fifth source noted.
6 Trump, who this week is overseeing White House construction projcets, including the erection of large flagpoles and the paving of the Rose Garden, has expressed concern about Iran turning into Libya.
AP
'If the regime falls [in Iran], then it's not on Trump, because that's not the goal of his very limited strike.'
That source mentioned concern that 'we get somebody worse than Khamenei.'
'As far as President Trump goes, he's not going to get in the business of who runs Iran, that's very salable to his base,' the source said.
6 Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has ruled his country since the 1980s.
ZUMAPRESS.com
If the US does successfully use bunker busters on the nuclear sites, one source close to the White House said 'there is still dealing with Iran's response' and fears of contamination or Iran retaliating through terrorism.
'He'd rather have a deal,' the source told The Post.
'There are two reasons Trump talks about Libya: the first is the chaos after what we did to Gaddafi. The second is the Libya intervention made it more difficult to negotiate deals with countries like North Korea and Iran,' said the source who heard the president directly mention the comparison.
Israel's defense minister left no doubt that the Jewish state is in favor of regime change on Thursday after dubbing Iran's supreme leader 'the modern Hitler.'
'The IDF has been instructed and knows that to achieve all the objectives, without question this man should no longer continue to exist,' defense minister Israel Katz said.
Hours later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the choice of US involvement in the conflict was 'entirely' up to Trump, claiming for the first time that the Israeli military was capable of decimating the remaining Iranian nuclear facilities without American bunker-buster bombs.
'We will achieve all our objectives and hit all of their nuclear facilities. We have the capability to do that,' Netanyahu said when asked by a reporter about the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant hidden half a mile under a mountain.
6
AFP via Getty Images
After Israel launched its preemptive airstrikes on Iran last week, many military experts had doubted that the Jewish state has the capabilities of taking out Fordow given how far underground it's located.
Even Israel's 2,000-pound bombs, purchased from the US, had been believed to be too small.
Multiple countries in the region have been torn apart by long-running civil wars involving the US — including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen — but Trump has pointed repeatedly at Libya.
Libya's longtime dictator Gaddafi, who ruled 42 years and voluntarily gave up a nuclear weapon program in 2003, was toppled by domestic foes aided by the Obama administration's intervention.
Khamenei similarly has ruled for a generation — with 35 years in power as supreme leader after nearly 8 years as Iran's president under the first supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.
6 Trump is considering airstrikes due to the uncertanity over whether Israel's bombs are powerful enough to collapse underground facilities.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES HANDOUT/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
In Libya, a hoped-for democratic transition gave way to a hellscape of ruthless warlords and religious extremists.
Slave markets opened and Islamic State terrorists filmed themselves beheading groups of Christians on the beach. Oil production plunged and the lack of a central government prompted Africans from across the continent to cross the Mediterranean to Europe in unsafe boats.
Leavitt told reporters at Thursday's White House briefing that 'the president is balancing a lot of viewpoints and he is listening not just to other world leaders, but to his advisors and to people here in the country and the American people too.'
6 Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow and Natanz could be hit in limited Trump strikes, a source told The Post.
AFP via Getty Images
'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' she said, sharing a full statement from Trump.
On regime change, Leavitt said 'the president's top priority right now is to ensuing that Iran can not attain a nuclear weapon and providing peace and stability to the Middle East.'
The White House referred The Post to Leavitt's comments made during the briefing.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good

New York Post

time15 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good

MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.

Satellite Images Show Damage to Iranian Nuclear Site After Israeli Strikes
Satellite Images Show Damage to Iranian Nuclear Site After Israeli Strikes

Newsweek

time31 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Satellite Images Show Damage to Iranian Nuclear Site After Israeli Strikes

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Israeli jets have bombed a nuclear reactor under construction in central Iran during a wave of air strikes on the seventh day of the conflict between the two countries. Satellite images show a hole in the domed roof of the facility caused by a blast. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the damage and said no nuclear material was present during the strike. Why It Matters The airstrike targeted the Arak heavy water reactor, known officially as the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, located about 240 kilometers southwest of Tehran. The Israeli military said the attack was designed to disable the core seal of the unfinished reactor and prevent it from being used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. What To Know The Arak facility, though still under construction, has long been viewed by Western powers as a potential component of a nuclear weapons program. Heavy water reactors like Arak produce plutonium as a byproduct, which can be used in nuclear weapons. Under the 2015 nuclear agreement, Iran was required to disable the Arak reactor by removing its core and filling it with concrete. However, in 2019, Ali Akbar Salehi, then head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, revealed in a televised interview that Iran had secretly obtained duplicate piping to rebuild the core. Israel released black-and-white footage of the strike, showing a bomb hitting the reactor's domed roof, followed by a large explosion. Iranian state TV aired daytime footage of smoke rising from the site and reported the area had been secured and evacuated prior to the attack. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which last inspected the site in May, confirmed there was no radioactive material at the facility and noted that key structures, including the distillation units of the adjacent heavy water plant, were damaged. The agency also acknowledged it had lost "continuity of knowledge" regarding Iran's heavy water production due to restricted access. Israel has previously struck other nuclear sites, including Natanz and Isfahan, in what it describes as a campaign to neutralize Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the attack, saying Israel had "crossed a new red line in international law." Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the strikes are necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. What People Are Saying IDF spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin said: "We continue to dismantle Iran's strategic capabilities—each strike reinforces our air superiority." President Donald Trump, during a bilateral meeting with the Canadian prime minister at the G7 summit, said: "They should talk, and they should talk immediately. I'd say Iran is not winning this war." Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, wrote in a post on X: "If Trump is genuine about diplomacy and interested in stopping this war, next steps are consequential. It takes one phone call from Washington to muzzle someone like Netanyahu," Iran's top diplomat continued. "That may pave the way for a return to diplomacy." What Happens Next White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump will make a decision on whether or not to have the United States join Israel's war with Iran "within the next two weeks."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store