Trump says he may soon strike deal with Harvard that is ‘mindbogglingly' historic
US President Donald Trump said his administration has been working closely with Harvard University and may announce a deal over the next week, potentially ending a stand-off between the White House and the richest and oldest US university.
'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,' Trump said Friday on social media.
'If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'
Harvard has been front and centre in the White House's campaign to reshape elite higher education, with the administration accusing the school of fostering antisemitism and for having political biases. The government has suspended more than US$2.6 billion in federal research money and said Harvard would not be able to receive new funding.
Trump has also repeatedly called for Harvard to lose its tax-exempt status, which would have significant financial implications, even with the school's US$53 billion endowment.
In addition, he has sought to block the university from enrolling foreign students, sparking a court battle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
an hour ago
- South China Morning Post
Israel says Iran's supposed nuclear programme delayed by 2 years amid fresh attacks
Israel claimed on Saturday it has already set back Iran's presumed nuclear programme by at least two years, a day after a warning by US President Donald Trump of a 'maximum' of two weeks for Tehran to avoid possible American air strikes. Advertisement Trump has been mulling whether to involve the US in Israel's bombing campaign, indicating in his latest comments that he could decide before the two-week deadline he set this week. Israel said Saturday its air force had launched fresh air strikes against missile storage and launch sites in central Iran, as it kept up a wave of attacks it said were aimed at preventing its rival from developing nuclear weapons – an ambition Tehran has denied. 'According to the assessment we hear, we already delayed for at least two or three years the possibility for them to have a nuclear bomb,' Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said in an interview published on Saturday. Saar said Israel's week-long onslaught would continue. 'We will do everything that we can do there in order to remove this threat,' he told the German newspaper Bild. Advertisement Top diplomats from Britain, France and Germany met their Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, in Geneva on Friday and urged him to resume talks with the US, which had been derailed by Israel's attacks.
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Who are Iran's true allies and will they help if US joins the war?
As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic. While considering a US attack on Iran's nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran's supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him 'an easy target.' He has demanded 'unconditional surrender' from Iran. Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program. So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid? Has Iran's 'axis of resistance' fully collapsed? Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure. This so-called 'axis of resistance' includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran's influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria before it was toppled last year. Members of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) carry images of comrades killed in US airstrikes in western Iraq in 2024. Photo: Ahmed Jalil / EPA via The Conversation These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement. However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network. Hezbollah — once Iran's most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah. In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad's regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region. That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen. The PMF in Iraq, with an estimated 200,000 fighters, remains formidable. The Houthis have similarly-sized contingent of fighters in Yemen. Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region's only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region. The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata'ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF's more hardline factions, promised to do so: If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation. Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world's oil supply flows. Houthi supporters hold anti-US and Israel placards and wave the flags of the Iran-backed 'axis of resistance' during a protest in Yemen's capital. Photo: Yahya Arhab / EPA via The Conversation Will Iran's regional and global allies step in? Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal. For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel's actions in Gaza. In a sign of Pakistan's importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country's army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour. Pakistan's leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran's president 'unwavering solidarity' in the 'face of Israel's unprovoked aggression.' And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will 'think many times before taking on Pakistan.' These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention. Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war. In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations. These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel's actions and urged de-escalation. It's unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US. Iran's key global allies, Russia and China, have also condemned Israel's strikes. They have previously shielded Tehran from punitive resolutions at the UN Security Council. However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US. Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran's stability. This is due to Iran's long-standing 'Look East' policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy. However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly. Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad's regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia's closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn't want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration. China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts. Ali Mamouri is research fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Asia Times
2 hours ago
- Asia Times
Trump's unpredictable approach to Iran could seriously backfire
Donald Trump has dismissed reports that he has approved a plan of attack against Iran, and now says he will decide on US involvement within two weeks. This will only add to the speculation and confusion about what the president might do in response to the mounting conflict between Iran and Israel. And that's exactly what Trump wants. This is not a case of indecision or buying time. Trump has long based his foreign policy on being unpredictable. Iran is another example of his strategy to be as elusive as possible. Yet, his approach has always been difficult – and now threatens to destabilize an already fractious conflict. One interpretation of Trump's public threat towards Iran could be deterrence. Trump is warning Iran that there would be significant consequences if they do not reverse their nuclear ambitions. Change or you will regret it. If this is Trump's plan, then he is doing it badly. Successful deterrence relies on clearly communicating the exact penalties of not complying. While Trump has specified a possible attack on the infamous underground nuclear facility at Fordow, the rest of the plan is extremely hazy. Trump said he wants 'better than a ceasefire.' But what does that mean? Just Fordow? Boots on the ground? Regime change? His ambiguity creates problems for deterrence because if your adversary doesn't know what the outcomes of their actions will be, they can't formulate a response or will think you just aren't serious. But current US foreign policy on Iran is more than bad deterrence. Trump's vague rhetoric and his refusal to commit reflects his long-standing strategy of being unreliable when it comes to foreign policy. Trump's prevarication has all the hallmarks of his unpredictability doctrine – which states that you should never let anyone know what you will do. The doctrine is also about uncertainty. The idea being that you unnerve your opponents by making them unsure, allowing you to take the advantage while they have no idea what to do themselves. Trump's rhetoric on Iran reflects that unpredictability doctrine. Trump actively said of his future action: 'I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' This would not be the first time he has used unpredictability in relation to Iran. In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This agreement – signed by the US, France, Germany, the UK, China, Russia and the EU – was designed to limit Iran's nuclear activity in return for sanctions relief. The US withdrawal was seen as disruptive and creating unnecessary uncertainty, not just for Iran but also US allies. Being unpredictable is a dangerous way of doing foreign policy. Stable international politics depends on knowing what everyone else will do. You can't do that with Trump. The downsides of unpredictability will be even worse in a conflict. In the case of Iran, adding even more uncertainty to a fragile situation will only add fuel to what is already a massive fire. Trump's refusal to specify exactly what the US response would be is more proverbial petrol. The insinuation that this could escalate to regime change may be true or not (or just unpredictable bluster). It's also the case that only 14% of Americans support military intervention and so a more aggressive policy may not be realistic. But if Iran is led to think that Trump is directly threatening their state, this could encourage them to hunker down as opposed to changing their nuclear policy – risking greater military action on both sides. Donald Trump is being unclear about whether the US is going to bomb Iran. Even just the implicit threat of US military intervention will damage what little relations there are between America and Iran. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said: 'Any US military intervention will undoubtedly cause irreparable damage.' Unpredictability then undermines any diplomatic negotiations or solution to the crisis. Trump is also risking his foreign policy relations beyond Iran. While preventing a new member of the nuclear club is a laudable aim, any US attack on a state over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will lie in the difficult shadow of the 'war on terror', the US-led military campaign launched after 9/11. With the International Atomic Energy Agency questioning Iran's capacity to build a nuclear bomb, the US's legacy of intervention over the WMD in Iraq that never were still looms large. Trump will need to be fully transparent and clear if any action over nuclear arms is going to be seen as legitimate. Unpredictability does not allow for that. Trump's fellow state leaders are going to feel disrupted by yet another example of unpredictability. Even if they support curbing Iran, they may find it difficult to back someone they simply can't depend on. And if they feel cautious about the Iran situation because they can't rely on Trump, Trump needs to start asking whether he can rely on them for support in whatever his next move is. Michelle Bentley is professor of international relations, Royal Holloway University of London This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
