Russian Negotiator Dmitriev to Meet Envoy Witkoff in Washington
By and Stephanie Lai
Save
US special envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to meet in Washington with senior Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev, according to a person familiar with the plans, an effort to smooth over tensions after President Donald Trump vented frustration with counterpart Vladimir Putin.
Trump told NBC News over the weekend that he was 'pissed off' with the Russian president and threatened secondary tariffs on buyers of Russian oil if Putin refused a ceasefire with Ukraine, rare public criticism of Moscow by the US president.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Russia warns US not to help Israel militarily against Iran
MOSCOW (Reuters) -Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned on Wednesday that direct U.S. military assistance to Israel could radically destabilise the situation in the Middle East, where an air war between Iran and Israel has raged for six days. In separate comments, the head of Russia's SVR foreign intelligence service, Sergei Naryshkin, was quoted as saying that the situation between Iran and Israel was now critical. Ryabkov warned the U.S. against direct military assistance to Israel or even considering such "speculative options," according to Russia's Interfax news agency. "This would be a step that would radically destabilise the entire situation," it cited him as saying. Earlier, a source familiar with U.S. internal discussions said President Donald Trump and his team were considering a number of options, including joining Israel in strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. On Tuesday, Trump openly mused on social media about killing Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but said "We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." Israel launched air strikes last Friday against Iran's nuclear sites, scientists and top military leaders in a surprise attack that Russia condemned as unprovoked and illegal. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who in January signed a strategic partnership treaty with Iran, has called for a cessation of hostilities between the two sides.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Stealth aircraft and 30,000-pound bombs: Why destroying Iran's nuclear program is a such a difficult feat
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Iran is staring down the possibility of seeing its most important nuclear facilities hit by a 30,000-pound American bomb. White House officials on Tuesday told NBC News that U.S. President Donald Trump is considering a range of options including striking Iran directly, after the American leader repeatedly asserted that his administration would not allow Iran to continue its nuclear program or reach bomb-making capability. Trump called for Iran's "unconditional surrender" and wrote in a post on Truth Social that the U.S. has the ability to assassinate Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now," Trump wrote shortly after declaring "total control" over Iranian airspace. The rapidly escalating conflict, triggered by Israel's surprise attacks on Iranian military and nuclear facilities on June 13, has sent oil prices surging and put a region on edge. Initially encouraging of diplomatic talks with Tehran, Trump's statements have become increasingly threatening as populations across the Middle East brace for what comes next. But destroying Iran's nuclear program — which Tehran asserts is for civilian energy purposes only — is no easy feat. Iran's most advanced and hardened nuclear facility, the Fordow plant in the country's northwest, is a fortress. Built inside a mountain some 300 feet underground and reinforced by layers of concrete, the plant — which is the most likely target of a potential American strike — is impenetrable by any bomb except the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). The U.S. is the only country in the world that has this "bunker buster" weapon, as well as the only country with the aircraft capable of transporting and deploying it: the B2 Spirit stealth bomber. This is in part why Israel has been so eager for U.S. involvement in its offensive operations against Iran in addition to its defensive ones. But a strike in itself would not be a one-and-done job, military experts say. "So you have two challenges. You would have to drop two of these penetrators at the exact same site" and likely need multiple bombing rounds, according to David Des Roches, a professor and senior military fellow at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. "And then you would never be precisely sure how much of the facility you've damaged," he added, meaning personnel may need to be deployed on the ground. "This leads me to believe that for those facilities, Israel will ultimately gain control of the air and then land forces on the ground, force their way into the facility by detonating the doors, and then go and place explosive charges, exfiltrate whatever intelligence they can get, and just detonate it from the inside," Des Roches told CNBC. Iran's military capabilities have been severely degraded over the past few days by Israeli attacks, which have taken out substantial parts of its air defenses, ballistic missile batteries, command-and-control nodes, and dozens of top commanders. Still, such a strike by the U.S. could trigger Iran to respond by striking at U.S. assets in the region like embassies and military bases. Trump has made clear that any attack on U.S. personnel would draw a fierce American response, which would then pull the world's most powerful military more deeply into a regional conflict. "The Iranians have signaled that they are ready to attack U.S. bases in the region in the event of a U.S. attack on their domestic soil," said Gregory Brew, senior analyst on Iran and energy at risk consultancy Eurasia Group, noting that American bases in Iraq are particularly vulnerable. "There are risks in that environment that an Iranian retaliation causes U.S. casualties, kills U.S. servicemen, and potentially compels President Trump to expand the scope of U.S. action and order additional strikes on Iran and that, of course, would threaten general escalation and drag us into not just a single operation, but potentially a protracted air campaign." Despite its enormous scale, the GPU-57 bunker buster would not create wide-scale damage beyond the area of the facility, Des Roches said. But it would have a "profound psychological effect on the Iranians," he added, who have already seen significant damage and radioactive contamination risk wrought to the infrastructure of several of its nuclear sites in other parts of the country. A further critical question remains whether the Trump administration will limit itself to targeting nuclear sites, or whether it will expand operations beyond that — something Israel's government has also been urging, as it conveys its desire to see regime change for its longtime adversary. "I think the conflict will end when Israel is confident that Iran has lost, for a significant period of time, the ability to make a nuclear weapon, and that its defenses are weakened enough that Israel will be able to go back and effectively disrupt any further effort by Iran to make a nuclear weapon," Des Roches argued. If Fordow remains operational, Israel's attacks would barely slow Iran's ability to build a bomb, nuclear analysts say. The decisions from the While House in the coming days will therefore prove decisive not only for the trajectory of Iran's nuclear program, but for the survivability of the Islamic Republic's regime as a whole. Ali Vaez, Iran project director at non-profit Crisis Group, believes that "Iran can survive and rebuild its nuclear program," even without a diplomatic avenue for a deal with the U.S. "The U.S. entering the war will close the door on diplomacy," Vaez told CNBC. "Trump might be able to destroy Fordow, but he won't be able to bomb away the knowledge that Iran has already acquired."
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Five reasons Trump should renew US engagement in NATO
At next week's NATO Annual Summit in the Netherlands, leaders of the 32 alliance members will come together to discuss priorities and the way ahead for NATO at a time when Russia and China pose pressing security threats. President Trump should pivot towards strengthening the transatlantic organization — here are the five reasons why. First, Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing the United States. He does not want peace in Ukraine. Russia is the antagonist in this conflict, and conditions for Ukraine are slowly worsening with each passing day. To end this trajectory, options are to punish Russia financially or to strengthen Ukraine militarily. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) recently met with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and wholeheartedly believe Putin is preparing for a new offensive, despite the high costs. More to the point, a June 2 meeting between Ukrainian and Russian officials in Istanbul, ostensibly to end the war, ended abruptly after less than 90 minutes with no real discussion about peace. If Trump draws back from the negotiations without demonstrating strength towards Russia, Putin will get exactly what he wants — in the end, control over Ukraine and a reformatting of Europe's security structure. Second, NATO has stood by the U.S., and Trump should be proud to return the favor with respect to transatlantic security. The only time NATO invoked Article V (treating an attack on one member as an attack on all) was right after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. If the U.S. fails to remain engaged in NATO, the world could see an escalation to the war more broadly on the European continent. Europe will take more responsibility for its own security, but it needs time to build credible conventional forces and will still depend on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Trade between the U.S. and the European Union is one of the most expansive in terms of absolute dollars on the global stage coming in at $975 billion in 2024. Market disruptions would be cataclysmic if war expanded to include countries on NATO's eastern flank. Russia will seek to test the resolve of the alliance if it perceives that the U.S. is doubting its commitments. Accordingly, the U.S. must maintain at least a credible forward presence of its military alongside our allies to deter Russia's ambitions from moving westward and strongly uphold Article V. The alternative hurt both the U.S. and European Union economically. Third, a robust relationship with NATO will leave Trump with a freer hand to deal with China. Continuous Chinese military capability and capacities are an increasing threat. On one side, China wants to be a large economic partner to both Europe and the U.S. On the other hand, its security policy actions are detrimental to a constructive relationship with the West. The strategic partnership between China and Russia should be monitored closely — not least the Chinese support enabling Russia's war in Ukraine. U.S. engagement with NATO will improve coordination to deal with this dual threat. Fourth, NATO engagement will provide the U.S. with improved collective intelligence sharing. Joint and combined Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance is an important capability to forewarn NATO (including the U.S.) of impending threats. Moreover, NATO members each have unique intelligence gathering capabilities and, as was the case in the leadup to the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, NATO countries should be transparent with the processed intelligence they prepare. Unlike China and Russia, the U.S. benefits from a wide intelligence network, and this collective intelligence sharing could be quite useful regarding antagonistic states, terrorism and President Trump's Golden Dome initiative. U.S. engagement at the summit should press NATO countries to continue to be transparent with intelligence sharing, especially on threats to Alliance member countries. Fifth, NATO engagement will help enhance cyber capabilities — another asymmetric capability that all adversaries of the United States use, as highlighted in the most recent Annual Threat Assessment. Moving beyond cyber defense, discussion at The Hague Summit should press for computer network operations, and more specifically computer network attack and computer network exploitation capabilities. Adversaries such as Russia and questionable actors such as China are using these tools against NATO members and allies alike. Not only does NATO benefit, but all member countries, especially the United States, would realize advantages as well. The fact that the NATO alliance has survived more than 75 years is quite significant. That said, the alliance cannot rest on its laurels. The U.S. plays a pivotal part in moving forward with serious discussion regarding these five issues. The security of both the U.S. and Europe is at stake. Tom Røseth, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the Norwegian Defence University College and founder of its Ukraine Program. He is coauthor of 'The 'Five Eyes' Intelligence Sharing Relationship: A Contemporary Perspective.' John Weaver, DPA, is a professor of Intelligence Analysis at York College and author of 'NATO in Contemporary Times: Purpose, Relevance, Future.'
