New York Times claims Elon Musk is 'continuing to lash out' at them over drug use report
The New York Times accused Tesla CEO Elon Musk of "lashing out" against them on Tuesday.
In May, the New York Times published a report citing "private messages" sent to them and "interviews with more than a dozen people who have known or worked with him" that alleged Musk's drug use was "more intense" than publicly known as he campaigned with then-candidate Donald Trump in 2024.
"Mr. Musk's drug consumption went well beyond occasional use," the NYT reported. "He told people he was taking so much ketamine, a powerful anesthetic, that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. He took Ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms. And he traveled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant Adderall, according to a photo of the box and people who have seen it."
Musk repeatedly denounced the article and called out the Times by posting the results of a recent drug test on his X account Tuesday.
The paper's communications team responded to the results, saying that Musk was "continuing to lash out" against them and stood by the story.
"Elon Musk is continuing to lash out because he doesn't like our reporting. Nothing that he's said or presented since our article about his drug use during the presidential campaign was published contradicts what we uncovered. We stand by our journalism," the NY Times Communications account wrote.
The NYT gave the same response after Musk challenged the New York Times and Wall Street Journal to release the results of their own drug tests.
"Great idea. I hereby challenge the NYT and WSJ to take drug tests and publish the results! They won't, because those hypocrites are guilty as sin," Musk wrote.
The back-and-forth between the New York Times and Musk has been ongoing since the article was published on May 30.
One day after the story was published, Musk wrote on X that the NYT was "lying their a-- off" and insisted that he had not taken ketamine in years.
The NY Times Communications account pushed back on Musk at the time, similarly accusing Musk of "lashing out" but with "no evidence."
"Kirsten Grind and Megan Twohey's thoroughly sourced report provides an important and fair look into Musk's drug use and family conflicts. They interviewed a dozen people who have known or worked with him, and saw private text messages, legal documents and photographic evidence," the NY Times Communications account wrote. "Elon Musk is just lashing out because he doesn't like our article. We provided Musk with multiple opportunities to reply or rebut this reporting before publication and he declined, opting instead to try to distract with a social post and no evidence."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
South Korea Plans $22 Billion Extra Budget as Tariffs Hit Growth
(Bloomberg) -- South Korea unveiled an extra budget worth billions of dollars, in a bid to support an economy struggling with sluggish consumption and mounting trade headwinds from Donald Trump's tariffs. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown How E-Scooters Conquered (Most of) Europe NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports The 30.5 trillion won ($22.2 billion) proposal includes 15.2 trillion won for economic stimulus and 5 trillion won for supporting livelihoods like small businesses, the finance ministry said in a statement. Another 10.3 trillion won is set aside to cover revenue shortfall for this year's existing budget, as taxation income fell due to weaker corporate performance and consumer spending. The proposal comes after President Lee Jae Myung took office earlier this month, vowing to boost growth and improve livelihoods. He had pledged over 30 trillion won in fresh spending through extra budgets to support small businesses and offset trade shocks. Before the election, 13.8 trillion won had already been approved as part of the first supplementary budget. Lee has inherited an economy already under pressure from weakening demand, compounded by months of political turmoil triggered by former President Yoon Suk Yeol's failed martial law bid. The country's gross domestic product shrank in the first quarter, prompting the Bank of Korea to slash its 2025 growth forecast to 0.8% from 1.5%. The central bank also cut its key interest rate to 2.5% and signaled more easing may follow. Of the 10.3 trillion won tax revenue shortfall, nearly 9 trillion won stemmed from declines in corporate and value-added taxation income. The figures point to deepening economic strain, and help explain why policymakers are leaning more heavily on fiscal stimulus. As a leading semiconductor manufacturer and a key player in global supply chains, South Korea remains particularly vulnerable to trade risks from US tariffs. Exports are equivalent to more than 40% of the country's GDP, and are a key driver of the the country's growth rate. Trump's across-the-board tariffs for South Korea, which are set to jump to 25% in early July from a baseline 10%, are among the highest imposed on US allies. Other sector-specific levies by the Trump administration threaten key South Korean industries, including semiconductors, cars, steel, and aluminum. 'Bold and timely fiscal support is essential for the economy to return to a solid upward trajectory,' second Vice Minister of Finance Lim KiKeun said in a briefing Wednesday. 'While the supplementary budget cannot solve all challenges at once, it represents the first crucial step forward.' The government plans to fund the extra budget through a mix of spending cuts and debt issuance. About 5.3 trillion won will come from restructuring existing outlays, while 2.5 trillion won will be drawn from surplus balances in public funds. Another 3 trillion won will come from changes to foreign exchange stabilization bonds, while the bulk — 19.8 trillion won — will be financed through new sovereign bond sales. The fiscal push will raise the nation's debt-to-GDP ratio to 49% this year, from 47.4% in 2024, as total government spending climbs 6.9%, the ministry said. Even before the election, the need for more fiscal stimulus was clear. BOK Governor Rhee Chang-yong warned that additional measures would likely be required in 2025, underscoring the challenges facing Asia's fourth-largest economy. As part of the stimulus package, the government plans to distribute vouchers worth between 150,000 and 500,000 won per person. The payments will be provided to the general population rather than targeted groups. The issuance of regional gift certificates will also be expanded to encourage spending, with policymakers hoping the combined measures will deliver a swift injection of cash into the real economy. The proposal still needs parliamentary approval, and opposition lawmakers have raised concerns about the rapid debt buildup and potential inefficiencies in spending. Song Eon-seog, a lawmaker from the People Power Party, warned that 'reckless extra budgets' could actually harm both livelihoods and the broader economy. Earlier this month, the central bank stressed the importance of swiftly drafting and implementing an extra budget to boost domestic demand, saying the stimulus would have only a limited impact on inflation. --With assistance from Seyoon Kim and Shinhye Kang. Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
E&E News
25 minutes ago
- E&E News
Did Trump's assault on regs just knock out CCS?
The Trump administration is telling the world that carbon capture and storage at power plants is not ready for prime time, delivering a major setback to a technology that's struggling to find a foothold. EPA proposed a repeal last week of the Biden administration's climate rule on electricity producers, which called CCS the 'best system of emission reduction' for long-running coal plants and new gas turbines. In a new proposed rule, EPA said capturing 90 percent of carbon emissions at power plants hasn't been 'adequately demonstrated and its costs are not reasonable.' It's 'extremely unlikely that the infrastructure necessary for CCS can be deployed' by a 2032 compliance date set under the Biden rule, EPA said. Advertisement The Trump administration's proposed rollback — which EPA touted in a news release Friday with more than 50 supportive quotes from lawmakers and trade groups — comes amid scant deployment to date of carbon capture projects on U.S. power generation. Fewer projects in the electricity sector could impede broader CCS efforts nationwide, whether they involve storing carbon dioxide underground or using it to pump out more oil and gas. 'Power plants are large emitters, and sequestering CO2 from these facilities would have required significant investment in transport and storage infrastructure, most likely in the form of [carbon capture] hubs or clusters,' Brenna Casey, an associate at BloombergNEF, said in a recent note to clients. 'Other industrial emitters, like cement plants and petrochemicals producers, could have piggybacked on the infrastructure built to serve these power plants.' In a report last fall, the Global CCS Institute — a think tank that supports the industry — said 19 commercial-scale CCS facilities were operational in the United States. Only one, the Petra Nova facility in Texas, is on power generation, the assessment showed. Analysts offered mixed views on how much of a setback the proposed repeal of the Biden rule could deliver to power sector CCS — with some saying it could push plant operators to rethink investing in the technology or hold off on plans, while others said they didn't expect the Biden rule to speed up CCS deployment on fossil power plants. Under the Biden rule, new combined-cycle natural gas plants that run more than 40 percent of the time would also have needed to curb their emissions by 90 percent by 2032. EPA's repeal 'could be a large blow' to the U.S. CCS sector, Brendan Cooke, vice president for new energies at research firm Rystad Energy, said in a statement. 'A little over half of the announced capture capacity for the power sector is for plants that would be regulated under the rules put in place last year' by former President Joe Biden's EPA, Cooke said. 'For these plants, the absence of regulation, plus challenging economics, may be enough for operators to reconsider investments.' Others, however, see a more muted effect from retracting the Biden rule, in part because of the current interest in developing natural-gas-fueled power plants known as peakers that typically only run during periods of high demand. 'Our original view was that the EPA regulations would not accelerate CCS deployment on power plants as we expect the majority of future gas plants to be peakers and expected the rule to cause coal retirements to accelerate rather than install CCS,' said Jeffery Jen, a senior analyst with Enverus Intelligence Research, in an email. 'Based off this, the repealing of the regulation should not materially impact CCS deployment on power.' The 'most prominent business case' for CCS deployment on power plants is helping to give data centers 'clean' and 'dispatchable' baseload power, according to Jen. In an analysis last June, the Rhodium Group research firm came to a similar conclusion, finding that fossil generation 'with carbon capture generally plays a small role on the grid in 2035.' While there's been 'limited' announcements of CCS for new gas-fired power generation so far, 'the impact to potential growth in this area would be the most significant as all new baseload gas generation would have been mandated to install CCS,' said Cooke at Rystad. 'Without regulation we should not expect near term growth in this area.' While the federal 45Q tax credit — the main incentive for CCS projects in the United States — has stayed relatively unharmed thus far in Congress' reconciliation package, high costs and difficulty building new pipelines to carry captured CO2 are also headwinds that have blunted deployment. The U.S. power sector is responsible for nearly a quarter of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — behind only the transportation sector. Last week, the Carbon Capture Coalition, a group that works to build federal policy support for carbon management projects, highlighted announced CCS plans in the U.S. power sector. 'Regardless of the administration's decision on how or if to regulate CO2 emissions from the power sector, carbon capture and storage technologies are here to stay,' said Jessie Stolark, the coalition's executive director, in a statement. Still, Stanford University professor Rob Jackson said companies won't pay for CCS when they can pollute for free. Jackson is a senior fellow at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment, as well as its Precourt Institute for Energy. Last week, Alex Bond, executive director of legal and clean energy policy at the Edison Electric Institute, said the group supports CCS technology but 'appreciates EPA's acknowledgment that carbon capture and storage technologies are not yet viable for widespread deployment.' 'Electric companies need standards for natural gas facilities that are attainable to plan and permit new facilities, along with flexible regulatory approaches that help maintain dispatchable generation,' Bond said in a statement. In a statement Monday, an unnamed EPA spokesperson said the agency's regulatory agenda under Biden 'was to kill off the coal, oil and gas sectors with costly regulations and mandates.' The U.S. hit record oil and gas production levels during the Biden administration, however. DOE didn't provide comments to POLITICO's E&E News on the outlook for the CCS industry. The Global CCS Institute, however, said some customers will continue to look for low-carbon power, regardless of EPA's position, and will be interested in natural gas plants with CCS. 'Some states may also continue to promote policies that require or incentivize CCS, and the administration is prioritizing Class VI primacy, which will help states move forward where CCS is a priority,' the institute said in a statement. 'Strong market signal' On Earth Day this year, the White House used the term 'cutting-edge' to describe CCS. The emissions-trapping technology was on a list of sectors — including nuclear and geothermal energy — that the Trump administration said it supports in pursuit of greater energy production and 'environmental innovation.' The inclusion of CCS didn't go unnoticed among industry members or its proponents, including the developer of a major carbon dioxide pipeline project in the Midwest. Since that April proclamation, however, the administration's mashup of policies around carbon capture has elicited both praise and disappointment. One development cheered by CCS supporters has been EPA's push to grant top oversight of wells used for geologic storage of carbon dioxide to state agencies. This year, EPA has bestowed that authority to West Virginia and proposed doing the same for Arizona and Texas, clearing the path for those states to issue permits for CO2 storage wells instead of the federal government. The Department of Energy, meanwhile, has announced its intention to remove carbon management from its Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management; proposed cutting the office's budget by about $270 million; and said its work would include 'promoting carbon capture, transport and storage with a focus on enhanced oil and gas recovery,' where CO2 is used to produce more oil. In May, DOE terminated nearly $3.7 billion in awards — including several on carbon capture projects. Carbon management backers called the cancellations a 'major step backward' for national deployment. Then came EPA's proposed rule last week, which said greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel-fired power plants don't contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution. Although it's 'disappointing to see the [Trump] administration send mixed signals on its support for carbon management, the industry has proven that it's still 'all in', including through an unprecedented number of announced projects and pending Class VI wells,' said Stolark at the Carbon Capture Coalition in an email Friday. There's a 'strong market signal' for CCS deployment through the 45Q credit, as well as bipartisan support from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Stolark also said. Peter Findlay, director of carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) economics at research firm Wood Mackenzie, said the Trump administration's exact strategy on carbon capture isn't crystal clear. But he said it's one of three decarbonization target areas the administration backs, along with nuclear and geothermal. As far as CCS can help to foster energy independence, the Trump administration 'sees it as favorable, but not invest vast sums in the technology development,' Findlay said. While the United States remains a leader in operational CCS projects globally, Findlay said the potential is there for China to move past the U.S. if there's not sufficient federal support for early stage technologies. The Trump administration hasn't prioritized carbon capture in terms of its budget, said Ryan Fitzpatrick, senior director of domestic policy for the climate and energy program at Third Way, a national think tank and advocacy organization. 'I think a lot of the support that it's had and the protection that it's had in things like the reconciliation bill has come from Congress,' Fitzpatrick said. 'But I do think the administration is missing the bigger picture here, that whether it's the U.S. or other countries, CCS is going to be deployed and equipment is going to be purchased, technology is going to be licensed. 'There is money to be made, and the U.S. is currently well situated to compete for that, but that's not guaranteed,' he added. 'We have to have public support for this as well.' This week, the Senate Finance Committee's portion of the Republican reconciliation bill included some changes to the 45Q credit, including increasing the credit value for CO2 used in products or enhanced oil recovery. Promoting CCS tied to enhanced oil recovery fits into President Donald Trump's focus on expanding oil production, Fitzpatrick said. Still, he said, if CO2 storage via enhanced oil recovery is how Trump can support carbon capture, that's not the worst thing, as that will still prove beneficial for the sector overall. Project ups and downs Despite the fanfare, the only operational CCS facility at a U.S. power plant has less than six years combined under its belt. The Petra Nova project, which captures CO2 from a coal-fired unit at a power plant southwest of Houston, started operating around the beginning of 2017. While DOE put out a happy third birthday to the facility in January 2020, the CCS facility would soon shut down. Beginning that May, Petra Nova took a hiatus of more than three years after low oil prices, induced by the Covid-19 pandemic, hurt the project's economics. The Petra Nova facility, which has cumulatively captured 5 million metric tons of CO2 since it started up, is owned by ENEOS Xplora, formerly JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration. Meanwhile, at least one CCS project in the power sector is no longer moving ahead. Project Diamond Vault — a CCS retrofit of a Louisiana plant mainly fueled by petroleum coke announced in 2022 — is no more. 'In 2022, Cleco Power announced it would be initiating a two-year study to explore retrofitting the company's existing Madison 3 plant to reduce carbon emissions' through CCS, the power company said in a statement this week. In 2024, Cleco Power 'discontinued the study because it was found that the project wasn't economic and in the best interest of our customers.' But other projects are still working to join Petra Nova's ranks. Those include a CCS project at a California Resources (CRC) gas plant in California's Kern County, which announced plans to start construction in the second quarter of this year and begin CO2 injection before the end of 2025. The project was hit with a lawsuit in November over allegations that Kern County officials didn't properly weigh its environmental risks. On Monday, CRC spokesperson Richard Venn said construction of the CCS project is expected to begin in the next several weeks and will last roughly six months. That work includes well drilling, grading, trenching, foundations and installation of CO2 capture equipment, he said. 'CRC remains focused on advancing CCS as a critical tool for reducing emissions in California and supporting the state's ambitious climate goals,' Venn said in an email. Other proposals to tack on CCS technology are further out on the horizon. Developers of Project Tundra, which would add carbon capture to the coal-fired Milton R. Young Station in North Dakota, have declined to say when they could reach a final investment decision on the project. They failed to reach that milestone in 2024 and the project lost energy company TC Energy as one of its developers last year. 'We remain focused on Project Tundra and look forward to a final investment decision when the necessary conditions align, ensuring that the project fits our long-term goals,' said Ben Fladhammer, a spokesperson for Minnkota Power Cooperative, which operates the Young plant and is a developer of Project Tundra. Fladhammer said the estimated cost of Project Tundra is now $2 billion, up from an earlier estimate of $1.4 billion. Minnkota had opposed the power plant rule finalized by EPA last year. Fladhammer criticized the Biden rule as 'unworkable,' pointing to 'aggressive timelines and requirements' that would 'push dependable power plants toward retirement at a time when electricity demand is rising and the grid is already under strain.' 'Project Tundra was initiated well before the current power plant regulations were finalized,' Fladhammer said, adding that the project 'remains an option under active evaluation as we assess technologies that can support reliable, lower-carbon energy production.' Meanwhile, a natural gas power plant in West Virginia with CCS — the CPV Shay Energy Center — 'remains in active development,' said Matthew Litchfield, vice president of external and regulatory affairs at Competitive Power Ventures, in a statement Friday. Announced in 2022 shortly after Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, the plant would have a capacity of about 2,000 megawatts. It's in the process of working through the interconnection process with regional grid operator PJM Interconnection, according to Litchfield. Construction on the plant is slated to begin in the fourth quarter of 2026. 'We look forward to continuing to advance the project and help the region address the critical need for more large dispatchable power projects like CPV Shay,' he said. Meanwhile, utility Duke Energy is working on a front-end engineering and design study for a CCS project at the Edwardsport coal-to-gas plant in Indiana, and that's expected to wrap in the third quarter of 2026. Duke welcomed EPA's announcement last week. 'Last year's power plant rule unnecessarily puts pressure on customer affordability and grid reliability with little to no environmental benefits,' Duke spokesperson Angeline Protogere said in an email Friday. 'We appreciate EPA's ongoing efforts to address these concerns.' Separately, Entergy said an engineering study for a potential CCS project at the Lake Charles Power Station in Louisiana is still ongoing and is expected to be completed this summer. 'While we are currently reviewing EPA's proposal for fossil fuel-powered generating plants, Entergy has long supported the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and we remain committed to transitioning to modern low- and zero carbon-emitting generating resources,' said Neal Kirby, an Entergy spokesperson, in a statement about EPA's proposed repeal. In Florida, Tampa Electric spokesperson Cherie Jacobs said the utility currently has 'no plans to move forward with CCS,' but is planning to drill two test wells near the Polk Power Station in central Florida to better understand the area's geology. Tampa Electric could decide to pursue CCS in the future 'if it's in the best interest of our customers,' Jacobs said. This story also appears in Climatewire. Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the timing of Project Tundra's cost increase.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia Warns World Is ‘Millimeters' Away From Nuclear Catastrophe
President Donald Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, on June 28, 2019. Credit - Brendan Smialowski—AFP/Getty Images A U.S. attack on Iran, which President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing for the possibility of, would 'radically destabilize the entire situation,' warned Russia's deputy foreign minister, as the war between Israel and Iran continues to escalate. Sergei Ryabkov told Interfax news agency on Wednesday that Russia has advised the U.S. against direct involvement in the conflict, which has already killed hundreds in Iran and dozens in Israel since it erupted less than a week ago. Ryabkov's comments come after Trump demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender' as he openly pondered authorizing U.S. strikes on the nation's nuclear program. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected Trump's demand on Wednesday and warned that the U.S. would suffer 'irreparable damage' if it joins the war. Iran and the U.S. have since sent mixed messages about their openness to resolving tensions peacefully. 'Iran does NOT negotiate under duress, shall NOT accept peace under duress, and certainly NOT with a has-been warmonger clinging to relevance,' Iran's United Nations Mission said in a statement Wednesday after Trump suggested that Iran had proposed a meeting at the White House. In a separate statement hours later, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asserted that Iran 'remain[s] committed to diplomacy'—with the sole exception of its dealings with Israel, against which Iran has maintained its military actions since last Friday's attack are in 'self-defense.' Trump offered a cryptic response Wednesday when asked whether he was planning to strike Iran: 'I may do it, I may not do it, nobody knows what I'm going to do,' he told reporters. The Wall Street Journal later reported that the President approved attack plans but was holding off on the final order to see if Iran would abandon its nuclear program, hoping that the threat of U.S. intervention would force Iran's hand to surrender. 'I like to make the final decision one second before it's due,' Trump told reporters. A source told ABC on Wednesday that Trump has grown comfortable with the idea of striking Iran's underground Fordow nuclear facility, after Axios reported that he wanted to make sure the plan would succeed in destroying Iran's nuclear program. Russia, a longtime ally of Iran and nuclear-armed adversary of the U.S., has sounded the alarm about the potential globally-devastating consequences of the conflict, especially should the U.S. military get more involved. 'Nuclear facilities are being struck,' foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova told Reuters on Wednesday. 'Where is the [concern from the] entire world community? Where are all the environmentalists?' The world, Zakharova warned, is 'millimeters' away from catastrophe. Earlier this week, Trump said he was open to Russia mediating in the Middle East, but after a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump told reporters Wednesday that he turned down an offer. 'I said, 'Do me a favor. Mediate your own. Let's mediate Russia first.' I said, 'Vladimir, let's mediate Russia first. You can worry about [this] later,'' Trump said. 'It's a delicate issue,' Putin told senior news leaders on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Wednesday. 'In my view, a solution could be found.' Putin said he has shared proposals for mediation with Iran, Israel, and the U.S. 'We are not imposing anything on anyone; we are simply talking about how we see a possible way out of the situation. But the decision, of course, is up to the political leadership of all these countries, primarily Iran and Israel,' Putin said. While a prominent Russian general claimed after Israel's initial attack on Iran last Friday that 'World War III' had begun and called for Moscow to prepare the mobilization of a million troops, experts say Russia is unlikely to intervene militarily. Earlier this year, Russia and Iran deepened their ties with the signing of a strategic partnership, which promised greater economic and military cooperation but crucially did not include a mutual defense clause. Middle East analyst Marianna Belenkaya told news outlet DW that Russia, which is enmeshed in its own resource-draining war with Ukraine that Trump has pressured Putin to end, is 'trying to restore or improve relations with Washington.' Belenkaya suggested that Russia feels no urgent need to offer direct military support, 'although some behind-the-scenes involvement can't be ruled out entirely.' Hanna Notte, a Russia and Middle East expert at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, posted in a thread on X, that Russia is more likely to focus on trying to take up the role of mediator and calling for deescalation through international bodies. Russia is navigating a 'fine balancing act: How to appear helpful to the U.S. while not freaking out Iran,' Notte wrote. 'For now, Russia will play its cards cautiously & observe how the situation plays out - understanding that it has [limited] leverage over the course of events And try to be involved in whatever comes next, while avoiding entanglement/overextension.' In fact, the turmoil could even prove helpful for Russia, at least in the short term. Russian oil prices rose 15% following the outbreak of the conflict. More critically, it distracts from the war in Ukraine, which has already been sidelined as Trump cancelled a June 17 meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to focus on the Middle East. 'Ukraine will suffer the greatest military and political damage in this situation, apart from Iran itself,' said Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Moscow-based think tank Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, according to the Guardian. 'A new war in the Middle East will not only distract the world's attention from the [war in Ukraine] but will also, apparently, contribute to the final reorientation of the U.S. towards providing military assistance to Israel.' Still, Russia has a lot to lose. Destabilization in the region could spill over into the South Caucasus where Russia exerts its influence, Notte said on X. And an Iranian regime collapse risks an already diplomatically isolated Russia losing one of its few remaining allies. 'If this regime falls, I think it will be much harder for Russia to retain its assets and influence in the country,' Notte told the Guardian. Russia has invested billions of dollars into gas, energy and infrastructure projects in Iran over the past two years. Russia, along with China and Pakistan, requested that the U.N. Security Council holds a second emergency meeting on the conflict, which has been scheduled for Friday. European diplomats will also hold nuclear talks with Iranian officials in Geneva on Friday, a European official told the Associated Press. The meeting will include diplomats from Germany, France, and the U.K., but currently is not set to include the U.S. Trump initially disclaimed involvement in Israel's attacks on Iran but has since shifted towards an increasingly threatening stance. That has included repositioning U.S. forces, warships, and aircraft to Middle East bases for 'defensive' purposes earlier this week and urging 'everyone' in Tehran—a city of 9.5 million—to immediately evacuate. When asked by reporters about his warning, Trump said, 'I just want people to be safe.' Among the steps Trump could take is a strike to kill Khamenei, which he suggested the U.S. is capable of doing in a Tuesday Truth Social post—a plan that Israel reportedly initially proposed but Trump previously rejected. Of the idea, Putin said on Wednesday, 'I don't even want to discuss such a possibility.' Another possible route the U.S. could take is striking Iran's deep-underground uranium-enrichment facility at Fordow, which would require powerful bunker-buster bombs that only the U.S. has in its arsenal. Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter in a Wednesday interview with CNN expressed confidence in Israel's ability to destroy Fordow but did not go into detail about whether that would entail U.S. support. 'It might require multiple strikes, it might require something else or it might require one of our surprises,' Leiter said. 'We have a few tricks up our sleeves.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Trump on Wednesday, saying in a national address that the two leaders 'speak constantly.' Israel, which has placed pressure on the U.S. to join the war, has also upped its objectives. Leiter said that Israel must eliminate Iran's ability to make ballistic missiles—in addition to its initial stated aim of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 'They cannot have the weapons that can destroy Israel, which they claim and which they want to do every day,' Leiter said. Iran has maintained, which Russia has publicly supported, that it has the right to enrich its uranium in line with its civilian nuclear program under the United Nations' Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation. U.S. intelligence earlier this year concluded that, while Iran has enriched uranium to unprecedented levels, the country was not believed to be developing nuclear weapons, though Trump has since dismissed those reports, saying 'I think they were very close to having them.' Analysts have warned that Israel's attacks may actually incentivize Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, rather than deterring it. Aragchi, the Iranian foreign minister, said in his statement Wednesday that 'we have never sought and will never seek nuclear weapons. If otherwise, what better pretext could we possibly need for developing those inhuman weapons than the current aggression by the region's only nuclear-armed regime?' The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, said it has lost track of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday. Because of ongoing Israeli attacks, inspectors are unable to verify the location of the stockpile, which should be secured at an underground facility at Isfahan but that Tehran had warned the IAEA could be moved in the event of an Israeli attack. In a statement after Israel's attack last Friday, Russia's foreign ministry implied that Israel's strikes were a 'cynical' attempt to sabotage diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. was in the midst of protracted talks with Iran centered around the latter's nuclear program, though discussions had stalled somewhat as Trump Administration officials increased their demands on Iran toward zero nuclear enrichment. A sixth round of talks was meant to take place over the past weekend but was cancelled after Israel's surprise attack. Seemingly implicating the U.S. too, Russia's foreign ministry said in a Tuesday statement that 'the confrontational approach and destructive actions of the Israeli leadership receive understanding and support solely from those states which are de facto accomplices, motivated by opportunistic interests.' 'Israel's continued, intensive attacks,' the Tuesday statement said, 'drive the world closer to a nuclear catastrophe.' Contact us at letters@
