Trump says nuclear deal with Iran not ‘necessary'
President Trump on Wednesday said he doesn't think it's necessary to come to a deal with Iran to abandon or contain its nuclear program, but said U.S. and Iranian officials will meet next week over a possible agreement.
Speaking following the NATO summit in the Hague, Trump said he assessed Iran's nuclear capabilities to be destroyed, despite U.S. intelligence reports suggesting Tehran's uranium enrichment program was set back months, not years.
'The way I look at it, they fought the war is done. I could get a statement that they're not going to go nuclear. We're probably going to ask for that. But they're not going to be doing it,' Trump said.
'We're going to talk to them next week with Iran, we may sign an agreement, to me I don't think it's necessary.'
Trump took on a combative tone throughout the press conference, pushing back against questions about the preliminary assessment that U.S. strikes on three of Iran's primary nuclear facilities may not have 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear facilities, as Trump has claimed.
'I said Iran will not have nuclear, well we blew it up, to kingdom come. I don't feel very strongly about it. If we got a document it wouldn't be bad,' Trump said of a nuclear deal.
An assessment by Israel's Atomic Energy Commission said that the U.S. strikes coupled with Israel's military operations in the country 'has set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years.'
Iran views its right to enrichment of uranium, the fuel needed for a nuclear weapon, as a pillar of their sovereignty and security.
Iran maintains its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, but the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog has raised alarm over the proliferation of enriched uranium moving Iran close to weapons-grade material, and Tehran hiding parts of its nuclear program from international inspectors.
Trump withdrew the U.S. from an Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran during his first term. Early in his second term, Trump gave Iran a 60-day window to reach a new agreement, but its leaders rejected a U.S. proposal after five rounds of talks. A planned sixth round was canceled after Israel began strikes on Iran earlier this month.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
NATO's United Front Tested As Trump Hammers Spain
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. NATO, together, has an "ironclad commitment" to its collective defense. Or, at least, that's what a long-awaited, if brief, communique published by the alliance on Wednesday said, as it rounded off its biggest summit of the year. Article 5 — perhaps the ultimate sign of unity — is fully intact, the alliance said. Trump, a notorious NATO skeptic, has at several points heaped doubt on just how seriously he takes Article 5, including as he set off on his journey to The Hague. Article 5 is part of NATO's founding treaty, meaning if one country is attacked, all other nations must see it as an attack on the whole alliance and respond as they see fit. Trump has not been shy or reserved in his criticism of European allies and Canada, whom he deemed were not pulling their weight in NATO. The U.S.'s allies agreed, trying to present a united front for months by pledging to raise defense spending, partly to keep the Americans on side. But it was not Trump who cast doubt on NATO solidarity this week in The Hague and what he termed a "highly productive" summit in a "beautiful" country. It was Spain, whose prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, announced in the run-up to the summit that Madrid would not be raising its defense spending to 5 percent of GDP. This is the figure Trump and his senior officials have demanded. It is also the number that was considered completely unrealistic even a few months ago. Even during the Munich Security Conference in February, when Vice President JD Vance eviscerated European politicians from the stage in front of them, there was little indication that 5 percent could be deemed feasible in the near future. But NATO rubberstamped a commitment on Wednesday to dedicate 3.5 percent of GDP to the military, plus another 1.5 percent to defense-related areas like cyber or infrastructure. President Donald Trump meets NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, June 25, 2025. President Donald Trump meets NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, June 25, 2025. AP Photo/Alex Brandon "It was not easy but we've got them all signed onto 5 percent!" NATO chief Mark Rutte said in screenshots of texts to Trump, posted by the president to social media on Tuesday. All but Spain. Madrid said again on Wednesday that it will be able to fulfil the new targets each country has been set without reaching 3.5 percent of GDP on core defense spending. Rutte told journalists on Monday the alliance was "absolutely convinced" it could not. Attendees at The Hague expressed a hope that Spain will eventually come around and increase its spending. If Madrid starts "lagging behind because they're not willing to spend enough, then there will be a serious discussion with Spain, and there will be much more pressure," retired Admiral Rob Bauer, who until last year served as the head of NATO's Military Committee, told Newsweek. Trump, meanwhile, appears to have opted for punishment of the U.S.'s ally. "They want to stay at 2 percent—I think it's terrible," Trump said during his press conference, which closed the summit on Wednesday. "I don't know what the problem is. I think it's too bad." Trump said he would "make them pay twice as much" in a trade deal currently being negotiated. Spain, as of 2024, did not meet the current 2 percent threshold each alliance member is, on paper, supposed to reach. It is not considered a major military powerhouse in Europe. "It doesn't really matter if Spain misses a target," one prominent attendee remarked. "It's a minor dent on an unimportant part of the vehicle." But the PR value does matter, at least to the U.S. Spain recusing itself from the 5 percent pledge is a "big problem," Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Politico. "I don't think that the agreement that Spain has reached is sustainable, and frankly it puts them in a very tough spot with regards to their other allies and partners," he added. One of these allies could be Estonia, a country staring down Russia that committed to spending 5.4 percent on defense on average for the next four years — or an extra $3.2 billion. Tallinn would try to meet NATO's new capability targets "as quickly as possible," the government said as it announced the decision in April. Exact NATO capability targets, assigned to each country and decided in early June, are classified and separate from the spending goals. If Spain had said it would not meet the capability targets, this would have been a much bigger concern, Bauer said. "Of course, I would have been more happy that everybody's following exactly the same standards," said Margus Tsahkna, Estonia's foreign minister, when asked about Spain's defense spending. But "unity is important as well," Tsahkna added to Newsweek. Publicly, there were enthusiastic nods to unity. Photos featuring smiling NATO leaders nodded to it, said Jim Townsend, a former Pentagon official. But NATO "has had fractures, always," he told Newsweek. "There's never been a totally unified NATO to begin with." Even still, he added, "all the nations want to have unity here." "There's always something," said Bauer. Attendees in The Hague have framed the defense spending pledge and snappy communique as a response to the threat of Russia, not just the biting condemnation of the U.S. president. "The biggest change for me was not President Trump," said Bauer. "The biggest change was the development of the threat — which is Russia, which was terrorist organizations," he added. On the horizon, too, is China, the former military committee chief said. "Time is against us — the Russian threat is real," said Ulysse Ellian, a Dutch lawmaker from the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, previously led by Rutte. "For most of the allies, they do feel the sense of urgency," he told Newsweek. "It's natural some of them don't, and then we have to convince them." Even now, some countries still need cajoling, Tsahkna said. The countries forming the spine of NATO's eastern flank, brushing up against the Russian border, have surged defense spending far quicker than Western and Southern Europe. Spain, geographically far from Russia, looks south to Africa more than toward the north and east. Across most parts of NATO, though, there is a widespread feeling that defense spending across the board must rise, and rapidly. This year's concise communique, homing in on defense and tossing other topics to the wayside, "highlights that Europe's need to spend more on defense is one thing all Allies can agree on," said Rachel Rizzo, a non-resident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Europe Center. But now the hard work begins, Rizzo said. "It's a long road ahead."
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
How perverse that the media can't accept Trump's stunning victory in the Middle East
President Donald Trump's strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and the cease-fire he brokered soon after between Israel and Iran were awesome accomplishments, but much of the media hates him so much, they can only find fault in them. Indeed, they'd prefer he failed — even if Americans suffer as a result. Liberal news outlets, for example, pounced on a singular intelligence report that claims the strikes only set Iran's nuke program back a few months. Advertisement Prime-time coverage spent hours treating the report as gospel, and a horrible reflection on Trump. Yet an Israeli intelligence report substantiated Trump's claims that the sites suffered severe damage, and a UN watchdog said Iran's nuclear program was 'set back significantly.' Advertisement Meanwhile, a Washington Post article griped that Trump's actions 'largely sidestepped the traditional foreign policy establishment and the intelligence community,' and that the prez used social-media rather than 'diplomatic channels.' Does that make them any less successful? Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! As of Wednesday, MSNBC was still calling the cease-fire 'fragile' and 'delicate,' though both sides halted their attacks. Advertisement Many in the press focused on legality of the strikes — even floating another impeachment of Trump. The prez's bombing, they said, violated the War Powers Act and were 'a clear violation of international law.' Yet they lodged no such criticism of Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton when they engaged in military actions without congressional authorization. It's beyond sad that so many in the media hate the president so much they can't accept a clear and dramatic win for Americans — and rejoice in it.
12 minutes ago
Trump, Hegseth slam news coverage of US intel report on Iran attack, say B-2 pilots upset
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday both tried to counter a preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment that the attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities did limited damage by claiming news accounts of the report demeaned the B-2 pilots who dropped the bombs. Speaking at a news conference as he was set to leave the NATO summit in the Netherlands, Trump claimed the pilots are "devastated" by the suggestion the strikes were not a complete success. He was asked several times Wednesday about the Defense Intelligence Agency's initial assessment that the bombings of the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo facilities likely set back Iran's nuclear program by only a few months. He acknowledged the receipt of the report but noted it was incomplete. He snapped back at reporters raising questions about it, repeating his claim Iran's nuclear program was "obliterated," and shifted the focus to the pilots who carried out the strike. "You should be praising those people instead of trying to find out by getting me by trying to go and get me. You're hurting those people," Trump told reporters. Later Wednesday, in a Truth Social post, he said Hegseth would hold a news conference Thursday morning "in order to fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots." "They felt terribly! Fortunately for them and, as usual, solely for the purpose of demeaning PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP," he said in part. "The News Conference will prove both interesting and irrefutable." The president claimed in his Netherlands news conference that he had received a call from Missouri, where the pilots are based, about the intelligence report and the news accounts about it, saying he had been told they were "devastated, because they were trying to minimize the attack." "I spoke to one of them. He said, 'Sir, we hit the site. It was perfect. It was dead on,' because they don't understand fake news," Trump said. The Pentagon referred questions from ABC News to the White House. Trump added about the pilots that "they were devastated. They put their lives on the line." Since Saturday's attack, Trump and his officials have repeatedly praised the B-2 pilots for the mission but stepped up referencing them as part of the pushback on Wednesday. Hegseth, standing next to Trump, came to the microphone to argue news reporters and outlets "don't care what the troops think." "These pilots, these refuelers, these fighters, these air defenders, the skill and the courage it took to go into enemy territory flying 36 hours on behalf of the American people in the world to take out a nuclear program is beyond what anyone in this audience can fathom," Hegseth said. At the same time, Hegseth and Trump downplayed the report's initial findings about the damage. "The report said what it said and it was fine. It was severe, they think, but they had no idea. They shouldn't have issued a report until they did, but we've got the information," Trump said. Trump earlier cited an Israeli intelligence report that he insisted assessed the "strike on Fordo destroyed the site's critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility totally inoperable." Military officials have said there is no doubt the sites sustained significant damage, but that a "battle damage assessment" would take time to complete, as no Western officials have been able to personally inspect the sites as of Wednesday. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in a statement posted on X late Wednesday that "Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed," and also slamming the news media. A source with knowledge of Gabbard's assessment told ABC News her description came from new U.S. intelligence. "The propaganda media has deployed their usual tactic: selectively release portions of illegally leaked classified intelligence assessments (intentionally leaving out the fact that the assessment was written with "low confidence") to try to undermine President Trump's decisive leadership and the brave servicemen and women who flawlessly executed a truly historic mission to keep the American people safe and secure," she posted in part. Hegseth contended that the preliminary reports and images spoke for themselves. "So, if you want to make an assessment of what happened at Fordo, you better get a big shovel and go really deep because Iran's nuclear program is obliterated and somebody somewhere is trying to leak something to say, 'Oh, with low confidence we think maybe it's moderate," he claimed.
