Trump: Israel attack on Iran could derail nuclear talks, tensions at boiling point
WASHINGTON, June 13 — President Donald Trump warned yesterday that Israel may soon strike Iran's nuclear sites, but urged the key US ally to hold off as he stressed his commitment to a diplomatic solution.
Tensions have soared in the region in the last two days with Trump warning of a 'massive conflict' and drawing down US staff.
Tehran meanwhile defiantly vowed to increase its output of enriched uranium—a key sticking point in talks with Washington—after being censured by the UN's atomic watchdog.
'I don't want to say imminent, but it looks like it's something that could very well happen,' Trump told reporters at the White House when asked if an Israeli attack loomed.
Trump said he believed a 'pretty good' deal on Iran's nuclear program was 'fairly close,' but said that an Israeli attack on its arch-foe could wreck the chances of an agreement.
The US leader did not disclose the details of a conversation on Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but said: 'I don't want them going in, because I think it would blow it.'
Trump quickly added: 'Might help it actually, but it also could blow it.'
News outlet Axios reported that Trump had said the United States would not participate in any strikes.
US troops in crosshairs
Trump later appeared to want tensions dialed down in a post on social media, while insisting that Iran must 'give up hopes' of developing a nuclear weapon.
'We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue! My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran,' Trump said on his Truth Social network.
Tensions have rapidly escalated in the past few days amid growing speculation that Israel could push ahead with air strikes on Iran.
Trump's Middle East pointman Steve Witkoff is set to hold a sixth round of talks with Iran on Sunday in Oman, which has mediated efforts towards a nuclear deal so far.
But Iran has also ramped up rhetorical pressure before the talks, including with a threat to strike American bases in the region if the negotiations break down and conflict erupts.
'If the talks fail, the risk of military escalation becomes much more immediate,' said Hamidreza Azizi, a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
The United States on Wednesday said it was reducing embassy staff in Iraq—long a zone of proxy conflict with Iran.
Israel, which counts on US military and diplomatic support, sees the cleric-run state in Tehran as an existential threat and hit Iranian air defenses last year.
Netanyahu has vowed less restraint since the unprecedented October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Tehran-backed Hamas, which triggered the massive Israeli offensive in Gaza.
'Non-compliance'
The United States and other Western countries, along with Israel, have repeatedly accused Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, which it has repeatedly denied.
Israel again called for global action after the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) accused Iran on Wednesday of non-compliance with its obligations.
The resolution could lay the groundwork for European countries to invoke a 'snapback' mechanism, which expires in October, that would reinstate UN sanctions eased under a 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by then US president Barack Obama.
Trump pulled out of the deal in his first term and slapped Iran with sweeping sanctions.
Iran's nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, slammed the resolution as 'extremist' and blamed Israeli influence.
In response to the resolution, Iran said it would launch a new enrichment center in a secure location.
Iran would also replace 'all of these first-generation machines with sixth-generation advanced machines' at the Fordo uranium enrichment plant, said Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.
Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal and close, though still short, of the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
14 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Sources: White House orders review of SpaceX's US$22b in federal contracts after Trump-Musk clash
WASHINGTON, June 14 — The White House earlier this month directed the Defence Department and Nasa to gather details on billions of dollars in SpaceX contracts following the public blowout between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, four people familiar with the order told Reuters. Sparking an ongoing review, the administration ordered the agencies to scrutinise Musk's contracts to ready possible retaliation against the businessman and his companies, these people said. As Reuters reported on Thursday, Pentagon officials are simultaneously considering whether to reduce the role that SpaceX, Musk's space and satellite company, may win in an ambitious new US missile defence system. Reuters couldn't determine whether the White House intends to cancel any of the approximately US$22 billion (RM93 billion) in federal contracts SpaceX now has. But the review shows the administration is following through on a threat by Trump during his spat with Musk last week to possibly terminate business and subsidies for Musk ventures. 'We'll take a look at everything,' the president said, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on June 6. In an email to Reuters, a White House spokesperson didn't answer questions about Musk's business, saying the 'Trump administration is committed to a rigorous review process for all bids and contracts.' In a separate statement, a spokesperson at Nasa said the agency 'will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the president's objectives in space are met.' Neither SpaceX nor officials at the Defence Department responded to requests for comment. The people familiar with the order said the contract scrutiny is intended to give the administration the ability to move fast if Trump decides to act against Musk, who until recently was a senior advisor to the president and the head of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The review is 'for political ammunition,' one of the people said. Whether the US government could legally, or practically, cancel existing contracts is unclear. But the possibility underscores concerns among governance experts that politics and personal pique could improperly influence matters affecting government coffers, national security and the public interest. 'There's an irony here that Musk's contracts could be under the same type of subjective political scrutiny that he and his DOGE team have put on thousands of other contracts,' said Scott Amey, a contracting expert and general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group based in Washington. 'Any decision shouldn't be based on the egos of two men but on the best interests of the public and national security.' Musk's SpaceX in recent years has become a crucial partner of the US government in much of its aerospace and defence work — launching satellites and other space cargo and potentially managing a crucial element of the 'Golden Dome' missile shield planned by Trump. Although Musk in recent days has sought to walk back some of his critiques of the president — such as calling for Trump's impeachment last week and linking him to a convicted sex offender — his outbursts nonetheless highlighted the government's reliance on SpaceX. Before reversing course, Musk threatened to decommission the company's Dragon spacecraft. The spacecraft, as part of a roughly US$5 billion contract with Nasa, is the only US vessel currently capable of carrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station. SpaceX is also building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with the National Reconnaissance Office, a US intelligence agency. The contract was a pivotal transaction for SpaceX, deepening its ties with US defence and intelligence services. — Reuters
The Sun
18 minutes ago
- The Sun
Israel attack on Iran tests Trump promise not to be dragged into war
WASHINGTON: For President Donald Trump, few goals on the world stage have been more explicit -- he will not drag the United States into another "forever war." Yet Israel's massive strikes on Iran will test that promise as never before, potentially setting up a showdown with his base as Trump decides how much support the United States will offer. Trump had publicly called for Israel not to strike as he sought a negotiated solution, and his roving envoy Steve Witkoff had been scheduled to meet Iranian officials for the sixth time Sunday. Trump, who hours earlier warned that an attack would cause "massive conflict," afterward praised Israeli strikes as "excellent." He boasted that Israel had "the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the world" thanks to the United States -- and was planning more strikes unless Iran agrees on a deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted that the United States was not involved in the strikes and warned Iran not to retaliate against the thousands of US troops stationed in nearby Arab countries. A US official, however, confirmed that the United States was helping Israel shoot down retaliatory missiles fired Friday by Iran. "The US has calculated that it can help Israel and that the Iranians will obviously be aware of this, but at the end of the day, at least at the public level, the US stays out," said Alex Vatanka, founding director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute in Washington. The hope is that "the Iranians will do a quick cost/benefit analysis and decide it is not worth the fight," Vatanka said. He said Iranian leaders are for now focused on staying alive, but could decide either to swallow a tough deal -- or to internationalize the conflict further by causing chaos in the oil-rich Gulf, potentially sending oil prices soaring and pressuring Trump. 'America First' impulse Most key lawmakers of Trump's Republican Party quickly rallied behind Israel, whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a hero for many on the US right and has long called Iran an existential threat. But Trump's populist "America First" base has been skeptical. Tucker Carlson, the prominent media commentator who counseled Trump against a US strike on Iran in the first term, has called fears of Tehran building a nuclear bomb overblown, saying neither Iran nor Ukraine warrants US military resources. Carlson wrote on X after the Israeli strike that there was a divide in Trump's orbit between "those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it -- between warmongers and peacemakers." Trump has brought outspoken non-interventionists directly into his administration. In an unusually political video this week, Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, warned after a visit to Hiroshima that "warmongers" were putting the world at risk of nuclear catastrophe. In a speech in Riyadh last month, Trump denounced decades of US interventionism in the Middle East and said, "My greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and to be a unifier. I don't like war." How far to back Israel? Daniel Shapiro, who served as US ambassador to Israel under former president Barack Obama, said it had been certain the United States would back Israel's defense against Iranian retaliation. But Trump will face a harder decision on "whether to use the United States' unique capabilities to destroy Tehran's underground nuclear facilities and prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon," said Shapiro, now at the Atlantic Council. "The decision will split his advisers and political base, amid accusations, and perhaps his own misgivings, that Netanyahu is attempting to drag him into war." Lawmakers of the rival Democratic Party widely revile Netanyahu, including over Israel's bloody offensive in Gaza. "This attack by Netanyahu is pure sabotage," said Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro. "What does 'America First' even mean if Trump allows Netanyahu to drag the country into a war Americans don't want?" he wrote on social media. Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the progressive Center for International Policy, said that China -- identified by Trump as the top threat -- could seize the moment, perhaps by moving on Taiwan, as it sees the United States as even more distracted. "Even without direct involvement, Washington now faces the prospect of indefinite resupply, intelligence and diplomatic backing for Israel, just as the war in Ukraine intensifies and global crises multiply," Toossi said. "Wars are easy to ignite, but once unleashed, they tend to spiral beyond control, and rarely end on the terms of those who start them."
The Sun
27 minutes ago
- The Sun
Trump Faces Dilemma as Israel-Iran Conflict Escalates
WASHINGTON: For President Donald Trump, few goals on the world stage have been more explicit -- he will not drag the United States into another "forever war." Yet Israel's massive strikes on Iran will test that promise as never before, potentially setting up a showdown with his base as Trump decides how much support the United States will offer. Trump had publicly called for Israel not to strike as he sought a negotiated solution, and his roving envoy Steve Witkoff had been scheduled to meet Iranian officials for the sixth time Sunday. Trump, who hours earlier warned that an attack would cause "massive conflict," afterward praised Israeli strikes as "excellent." He boasted that Israel had "the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the world" thanks to the United States -- and was planning more strikes unless Iran agrees on a deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted that the United States was not involved in the strikes and warned Iran not to retaliate against the thousands of US troops stationed in nearby Arab countries. A US official, however, confirmed that the United States was helping Israel shoot down retaliatory missiles fired Friday by Iran. "The US has calculated that it can help Israel and that the Iranians will obviously be aware of this, but at the end of the day, at least at the public level, the US stays out," said Alex Vatanka, founding director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute in Washington. The hope is that "the Iranians will do a quick cost/benefit analysis and decide it is not worth the fight," Vatanka said. He said Iranian leaders are for now focused on staying alive, but could decide either to swallow a tough deal -- or to internationalize the conflict further by causing chaos in the oil-rich Gulf, potentially sending oil prices soaring and pressuring Trump. 'America First' impulse Most key lawmakers of Trump's Republican Party quickly rallied behind Israel, whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a hero for many on the US right and has long called Iran an existential threat. But Trump's populist "America First" base has been skeptical. Tucker Carlson, the prominent media commentator who counseled Trump against a US strike on Iran in the first term, has called fears of Tehran building a nuclear bomb overblown, saying neither Iran nor Ukraine warrants US military resources. Carlson wrote on X after the Israeli strike that there was a divide in Trump's orbit between "those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it -- between warmongers and peacemakers." Trump has brought outspoken non-interventionists directly into his administration. In an unusually political video this week, Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, warned after a visit to Hiroshima that "warmongers" were putting the world at risk of nuclear catastrophe. In a speech in Riyadh last month, Trump denounced decades of US interventionism in the Middle East and said, "My greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and to be a unifier. I don't like war." How far to back Israel? Daniel Shapiro, who served as US ambassador to Israel under former president Barack Obama, said it had been certain the United States would back Israel's defense against Iranian retaliation. But Trump will face a harder decision on "whether to use the United States' unique capabilities to destroy Tehran's underground nuclear facilities and prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon," said Shapiro, now at the Atlantic Council. "The decision will split his advisers and political base, amid accusations, and perhaps his own misgivings, that Netanyahu is attempting to drag him into war." Lawmakers of the rival Democratic Party widely revile Netanyahu, including over Israel's bloody offensive in Gaza. "This attack by Netanyahu is pure sabotage," said Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro. "What does 'America First' even mean if Trump allows Netanyahu to drag the country into a war Americans don't want?" he wrote on social media. Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the progressive Center for International Policy, said that China -- identified by Trump as the top threat -- could seize the moment, perhaps by moving on Taiwan, as it sees the United States as even more distracted. "Even without direct involvement, Washington now faces the prospect of indefinite resupply, intelligence and diplomatic backing for Israel, just as the war in Ukraine intensifies and global crises multiply," Toossi said. "Wars are easy to ignite, but once unleashed, they tend to spiral beyond control, and rarely end on the terms of those who start them."
