Trump scrambles to claim credit for Israel's Iran attack he publicly opposed
Donald Trump is walking a tightrope as he claims that he was fully aware of Israel's plans to launch massive airstrikes against Iran while continuing to distance the US from those strikes and deny Washington took any active role in the preparations.
The White House's messaging has shifted quickly from Marco Rubio's arms-length description of the Israeli attack as a 'unilateral action', to Trump claiming on Friday morning that he was fully in the loop on the operation and that it came at the end of a 60-day ultimatum he had given Iran to 'make a deal' on its nuclear programme.
'Today is day 61,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'I told [Iran] what to do, but they just couldn't get there.'
Trump's framing presents a good cop-bad cop dynamic of his approach with Benjamin Netanyahu, the embattled Israeli leader with whom he has a notoriously combative relationship. The US president has scrambled to now present the Israeli strikes, which he publicly claimed he did not want on Thursday, as a means of continuing his efforts to convince Iran to negotiate.
'They should now come to the table to make a deal before it's too late,' he said.
Related: UK government says it gave no military support for Israel's attack on Iran
But the discordant US response to the strikes, including Rubio's Thursday evening statement, a hasty evacuation of some US personnel from the region and ambiguity over whether the US provided intelligence or would actively take part in Israel's defence from a likely counterattack, has raised questions over whether Israel may have moved ahead of the Trump administration as a way to present Washington with a fait accompli.
'They made a bet on President Trump,' said Elliott Abrams, a former diplomat and senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggesting that Israel had pushed harder for strikes while the Trump administration had sought to maintain a diplomatic route. 'The Israelis struck and then today Trump called it 'excellent'.'
While Israel had clearly given the United States advanced warning of the strike, claims that it was fully coordinated in Israeli state media have been subject to speculation: was Trump actually on board or was he repositioning himself on Friday in order to present the strikes as part of a coherent strategy.
On Thursday, in remarks from the White House's East Room, Trump said that strikes on Israel could 'blow up' his diplomatic efforts to negotiate with the Iranian leadership and said he 'didn't want them going in'. He defended his decision to begin evacuating personnel because a strike 'could well happen'.
'The US started evacuating voluntarily non-essential personnel on Wednesday, barely 24 hours ahead of time, not enough time to really get people out of harm's way,' said Rosemary Kelanic, the Middle East director for Defense Priorities, a thinktank that pushes for a more restrained US foreign policy. 'So the question for me is what did the president know and when did he know it?'
On Friday, Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he was not caught unaware by the strike: 'Heads-up? It wasn't a heads-up. It was, we know what's going on.' And he indicated that he had been apprised of future Israeli plans, writing that the 'next already planned attacks' would be 'even more brutal'.
Senior Israeli officials also began to brief media that Trump had only pretended to oppose an Israeli attack and that they in fact had a 'green light' for the attack. But Kelanic and others noted that Israel may be seeking a means to 'entrap' the US into a war.
In either case, it is doubtful that Israel could have prepared the attack in the past week without US knowledge.
Officials at the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies would have seen the preparations for the airstrike – involving more than 200 Israeli fighter jets striking more than 100 targets across Iran – and probably understood that Israel was planning a major attack against Tehran.
Late on Thursday, administration officials told Fox News that the US had replenished missiles for Israel's Iron Dome anti-air batteries in recent weeks in preparation for an expected counterattack.
Related: Leaders at G7 summit need to challenge Trump without ganging up on him
And the US in recent weeks had deployed B-52 bombers to its airbase on the remote Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, where multiple B-2 bombers have also been stationed since late March. B-2s stationed at the base took part in airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen earlier this year, but the base would also serve as a launching point for airstrikes against Iran if the US were to join the conflict.
But there are other explanations for the resupply of anti-air missiles to Iron Dome, particularly following the unprecedented barrage of ballistic missiles launched by Iran against Israel last year.
And the US could have employed those B-2s and B-52s to strike the Fordow uranium enrichment centre, which is located deep underground and was not apparently struck in Friday morning's strikes. Still intact, it represents an important element in Iran's nuclear program that was not eliminated – at least in the first round of the Israeli attacks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
Israel's Strategy Against Iran: Will It Succeed?
As the Israel-Iran confrontation extends day after day, while officials claim it could last weeks, it's useful to take a dispassionate look at the goals and likely outcomes. Readers will recall that this columnist covered a comparable events on site in Israel a year or so ago. This after decades of covering the wider region for Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal. So, peering through the fog of war let us find areas of clarity where possible. This latest round of the conflict began with precision strikes by Israel successfully targeting top members of the Iranian regime's military and nuclear leadership. One should pause there a moment and put that in context. Russia and Iran ratified a security treaty in April which, inter alia, included Russian anti-aircraft defenses. Did they not function? What happened to their efficacy? If such a strategic treaty means anything it means at least defending the regime, if not the country. Russia doesn't want regime change in Iran - certainly not a Western-style democracy hostile to Moscow. There will undoubtedly be leaders in Tehran wondering about the value of the Russian alliance, its weapons and guarantees. Or indeed there will be suspicions of Russian perfidy - as happened over Syria. In the first days, Israel limited its attacks to military and nuclear affiliated leaders and sites. Moscow wouldn't (in private) necessarily mind that scenario - it would rather have a non-nuclear Iran on its southern borders anyway or at least one dependent on Russian nuclear installations. Plus Moscow would doubtless welcome the spike in oil prices that a regional conflict spurs - which indeed is happening now. The problem is that the momentum of events is turning into a test of the regime's legitimacy - that is to say, threatening the regime's power. The success of Israel's initial attacks meant Tehran had to respond. And not just as a piece of theatrical son et lumiere as happened last time when Israel got off virtually unscathed. But as Tehran fired back repeatedly and began to get through sporadically, Israel has widened the range of targets. Attacks on energy installations will certainly spike the price of oil. But damaging the regime's oil revenues, blacking out Tehran's electricity grid, and causing civilian disorder definitely weakens the government's grip on power. These latest additional targets, combined with the rising civilian casualties in Israel, constitute an escalation where both sides are striving to alienate the opposing side's public from its leadership. There is some media talk that Israel asked President Trump for permission to take out Supreme Leader Khamenei and Trump refused. This sounds implausible in its literal form. Did they ask permission before launching the attacks in the first place? And taking out other top leaders? If not, then why consult the US about Khamenei? No, it's more likely to be a form of subtle or not-so-subtle messaging - Trump kept Khamenei alive this time. In return, nuclear concessions should be forthcoming otherwise the US might not be able to restrain the Israelis next time. This exact strategy, scaled up, is likely the core calculation of Israel's strategy for the full-scale renewal of hostilities. Why suddenly attack a number of nuclear installations if you can't take them all out in a first strike or after several strikes? Iran has nuclear plants buried deep inside mountains, inaccessible to air strikes and others that would, if flattened, contaminate large areas of the Persian Gulf. Including Arab states potentially friendly to the US and Israel. Short of a ground attack with US troops included, these parts of Iran's nuclear network are to some degree invulnerable. So why then launch the attacks in the first place? The answer lies in the Khamenei protocol above. Remember that top nuclear and military personnel were also neutralized in the first strikes. In other words, because the installations cannot all be destroyed, those responsible for them can and will be. In short, this is a kind of anti-personnel war disguised as a strategic anti-infrastructure campaign. Israel has repeatedly shown that it can knock out vital component parts of hostile leadership from Hezbollah to Iran. That is the nature of this latest Israeli casus belli too. Nuclear and military officials will either negotiate away Iran's nuclear threat or they themselves will pay. The principle applies equally to Khamenei himself. Time will tell if the regime leaders react as desired. Thus far, it seems not. Iran's counterstrikes at Israel and the widening of the domestic damage in each country suggests that a much longer attritional struggle to induce regime change by each side is on the cards.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump blocks California rules for greener vehicles and gas-powered car ban
Donald Trump has blocked California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, signing a resolution on Thursday to stymie the state's ambitious attempt to tackle the climate crisis by pivoting to greener vehicles. The state quickly announced it was challenging the move in court, with California's attorney general holding a news conference to discuss the lawsuit before Trump's signing ceremony ended at the White House. The resolution was approved by Congress last month and aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. Trump also signed measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Related: Fury as Republicans go 'nuclear' in fight over California car emissions California has some of the worst smog and air quality issues in the nation, and has for decades been able to seek waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency that have allowed the state to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. But Trump, who has pledged to revive the US auto manufacturing industry and boost oil and gas drilling, called California's regulations 'crazy'. 'It's been a disaster for this country,' he said at a White House ceremony where he signed the resolutions. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its own standards, which Joe Biden reinstated in 2022. The move is the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over issues including tariffs, LGBTQ+ rights and immigration. The state is already involved in more than two dozen lawsuits challenging Trump administration actions, and the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, announced the latest one at a news conference in California. Ten other states, all with Democratic attorneys general, joined the lawsuit filed on Thursday. 'The federal government's actions are not only unlawful; they're irrational and wildly partisan,' Bonta said. 'They come at the direct expense of the health and the wellbeing of our people.' The three resolutions Trump signed will block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and ending the sale of new ones by 2035. They will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. In his remarks at the White House, Trump expressed doubts about the performance and reliability of electric vehicles, though he had some notably positive comments about the company owned by Elon Musk, despite their fractured relationship. 'I like Tesla,' Trump said. In remarks that often meandered off topic, Trump used the East Room ceremony to also muse on windmills, which he claimed 'are killing our country', the prospect of getting electrocuted by an electric-powered boat if it sank and whether he'd risk a shark attack by jumping as the boat went down. 'I'll take electrocution every single day,' the president said. When it comes to cars, Trump said he likes combustion engines but, for those that prefer otherwise, 'if you want to buy electric, you can buy electric'. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major carmakers, applauded Trump's action. 'Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,' John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, said Trump's action was a continuation of his 'all-out assault' on California. 'And this time he's destroying our clean air and America's global competitiveness in the process,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a president who is a wholly owned subsidiary of big polluters.' Related: 'Putting profit over people': big gas is waging war on a California clean air rule The signings come as Trump has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move follows other steps the Trump administration has taken to roll back rules that aim to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the signing of the resolutions was 'Trump's latest betrayal of democracy'. 'Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward big oil and big auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets,' Becker said in a Associated Press contributed reporting
Washington Post
19 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Nuclear agency head warns of radiological and chemical contamination inside Iran's main nuclear site
VIENNA — The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday that there is a possibility of both radiological and chemical contamination within Iran's main nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz following Israeli strikes, although radiation levels outside the complex are presently normal. IAEA director general Rafael Mariano Grossi said that the radiation poses a significant danger if uranium is inhaled or ingested. He added that the risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the facilities. 'The level of radioactivity outside the Natanz site has remained unchanged and at normal levels, indicating no external radiological impact to the population or the environment from this event,' Grossi said. Grossi was addressing an urgent session of the U.N. nuclear watchdog board in Vienna that was convened at the request of Russia to discuss Israeli attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities. He said there apparently was no additional damage at Natanz and the Isfahan nuclear research site since Saturday. He said that the main concern inside the Natanz facility is the chemical toxicity of a gas called uranium hexafluoride, which is the result of fluorine mixed with the uranium during enrichment. It is extremely volatile, will quickly corrode, can burn the skin and is especially deadly if inhaled, experts say. 'Amid theses challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the facilities and their respective sites,' Grossi said. Without information, the U.N. nuclear watchdog 'cannot accurately assess the radiological conditions and potential impacts on the population and the environment and cannot provide the necessary assistance.' Grossi said that U.N. inspectors will remain present in Iran and inspect the nuclear facilities 'as soon as safety conditions allow.' He warned that 'military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.' Satellite photos analyzed by The Associated Press show extensive damage at Iran's main nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz. The images captured Saturday by Planet Labs PBC show multiple buildings damaged or destroyed. The structures hit include buildings identified by experts as supplying power to the facility. Grossi told the U.N. Security Council on Friday that the above-ground section of the Natanz facility was destroyed. The main centrifuge facility underground did not appear to be hit, but the loss of power could have damaged infrastructure there, he said. Israel also struck a nuclear research facility in Isfahan. The IAEA said four critical buildings were damaged, including an uranium-conversion facility, but there was no sign of increased radiation at Natanz or Isfahan. Grossi on Monday also told the IAEA board of governors that no damage has been seen at the site of the Fordo enrichment site, which is buried under a mountain and protected by anti-aircraft batteries. Fordo appears designed to withstand airstrikes . Grossi also said that the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran's only commercial nuclear power plant, has not been targeted nor affected by the recent attacks and neither has the Tehran Research Reactor. Any country on the 35-member board of the IAEA can call a meeting under its rules. The IAEA board last week found Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 year. —- The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation . The AP is solely responsible for all content. —- Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape:
