Bloomberg Intelligence: Trump Says He Wants a ‘Real End,' Between Israel and Iran
Watch Alix and Paul LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF. Bloomberg Intelligence hosted by Paul Sweeney and Alix Steel Ethan Bronner, Bloomberg News Israel Bureau Chief, discusses the latest out of Mideast. President Trump said his early departure from the G7 meeting has "nothing to do" with working on a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, adding that his reason is "much bigger than that." Henrietta Treyz, Managing Partner and Director of Economic Policy at Veda Partners, joins to discuss the latest on the tax bill. Republican leaders aim to quickly negotiate changes to the Senate tax bill, which lacks the votes to pass in both chambers as written. Shelby McFaddin, Investment Analyst at Motley Fool Asset Management, discusses her outlook for the markets amid global tensions and economic data concerns. Stocks fell and bonds rose as traders prepared for the Federal Reserve's decision, driven by concerns about the Middle East and weak economic data.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is flirting with strikes in Iran. That could be a tough sell at home.
For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world's problems are not necessarily ours. Iran could be about to test that. President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel's attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon, he wrote on Truth Social that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an 'easy target,' and said, 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' These comments came as CNN reported he's indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump has saber-rattled for effect before, so it's possible this is him employing the 'madman theory' of foreign policy again. But it's also evident that we're closer to a major new military confrontation than we've been in two decades. So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It's complicated. Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions. Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances. A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. American voters favored that 53% to 30% – a 23-point margin. The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disputed Gabbard's account on Tuesday, but it's not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That's particularly because America's last major military foray, into neighboring Iraq, became so unpopular due how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed. Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being. Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis: The same Fox poll showed 57% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans called Iran a 'real national security threat.' A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least 'very' concerned about Iran getting a nuke. And Gallup polling last year showed 93% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a 'critical threat' to the vital interests of the United States. But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high. Pew Research Center polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64%) and Russia (59%) were major military threats than Iran (42%). Pew data last year also found only 37% of Americans said limiting Iran's power and influence should be a 'top priority.' It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China's power and about the same as North Korea's – while also falling below limiting climate change. And back in 2020, just 14% of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64%), while 17% said it wasn't a threat. All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it's likely we'd see these numbers polarize. But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon — in contrast to Israeli warnings — but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported Tuesday. Trump's history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favor of the strike. But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made us less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42%. All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don't have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump's Iran policies. The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don't necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear. But it doesn't mean you think that's imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm's way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today. And there's plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
GOP hawks clash with MAGA isolationists as Trump contemplates next steps in Iran
(CNN) — As President Donald Trump prepared to leave the G7 summit a day early amid an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, he dialed up his go-to national security confidant Sen. Lindsey Graham — who's also one of the GOP's most vocal war hawks. In that phone call, Graham said he personally urged Trump to go 'all in' to end any hope Iran had of attaining a nuclear weapon, using the considerable might of the US military if necessary. After months of talks with Iran ahead of Israel's strikes last week, Graham now warned Trump: The window for diplomacy has passed. 'I said, 'Mr. President, this is a historic moment. Four presidents have promised that they won't get a nuclear weapon on your watch. You can fulfill that promise,' Graham said, recalling his conversation with Trump. The call reflects how Trump, who has embraced a more isolationist approach than many of his GOP predecessors, is navigating competing forces within his own party as he contemplates whether to order the US military to strike Iranian nuclear sites. On one side: traditional Republicans like Graham who are eager to see the US flex its military muscle. On the other, key MAGA allies like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has forcefully argued this week that anyone 'slobbering' for the US to intervene in Iran is not in line with Trump's politics. Greene told CNN she has traded texts with the president recently, though she would not divulge their conversation. 'We have all been very vocal for days now urging, 'Let's be America first. Let's stay out,'' Greene told CNN on Tuesday of the pressure campaign, which she said has included more isolationist Republicans like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Matt Gaetz. The lobbying has played out publicly and privately, with Republicans taking aim at one another as they have jockeyed for Trump's attention. In public appearances since his phone call with Trump, Graham has pushed a specific plan for Trump to use the US military to attack a secretive Iranian nuclear site, which is so deep underground that the only way to destroy it would be using a massive bomb that only America possesses. That kind of move would also require a US bomber to enter Iranian airspace — a major escalation of the American role in the conflict. Two US officials told CNN Tuesday Trump was increasingly receptive to that approach, and less interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution. 'The president, he's his own man. Everyone who knows Donald Trump knows he makes up his own mind. But I think it's important to discuss. We have to let him know what we think,' Greene told CNN, adding that she's been getting a flood of calls to her office supporting her position. 'Many Americans just do not want to be involved. That's why I spoke up and have been vocal about it.' As the president huddled in the Situation Room with his top advisers to weigh his options on Tuesday, a small group of House and Senate lawmakers — including at least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie — have been privately mobilizing one possible way to check Trump's power in Congress. In the last 24 hours, two lawmakers have introduced War Powers Resolutions that would formally limit Trump's power to deploy the military without Congress' specific consent. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading the push in the Senate, with Massie taking lead on the House measure. Such an effort could face tall odds in the GOP-controlled chambers of Congress, particularly if a vote comes before more Trump action in the Middle East. But both measures in the House and Senate are expected to be 'privileged,' which means leaders will be forced to bring it to the floor. That could be a major headache for both parties, with Democratic progressives and GOP ultraconservatives known to veer from their own party orthodoxy on war powers matters. Debate on the Senate measure is expected to come to a head in the coming days, with a vote as soon as next Wednesday, Kaine told CNN. It could have robust Democratic support. 'I believe Congress and the Senate, Senate Democrats, if necessary, will not hesitate to exercise our authority,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on whether he would support the measure. In the House, the timeline for a vote is less clear. Massie formally introduced the measure on Tuesday but privately has not yet indicated when he might force it to the floor, as lawmakers of both parties closely watch Trump's next steps, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions. In the House, GOP leaders have moved to prevent contentious measures from coming to the floor before — but it's not clear the votes would be there to do that this time, according to one person familiar with the discussions. Lawmakers' calculus could also be upended by what Trump does in the coming days, sources in both parties told CNN. That includes whether Trump escalates the conflict by using U.S. military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities like the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the deep underground facility that is seen as key to Iran's desires to constructing a unclear weapon. 'If that happens, then it's a game changing calculation,' one congressional source told CNN. Greene and Massie are not the only Hill Republicans vocally opposed to Trump increasing US involvement in the conflict. Sen. Josh Hawley, another critic of intervening in foreign wars, spoke to Trump about this topic, including others, in a recent call. He said Trump 'wisely' did not talk about offensive action with Iran in their conversation. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky noted that Trump has in the past held back, and said he hoped he would do so again. 'I think the lingering chance for diplomacy comes from restraint. The President has shown restraint in the past,' Paul said. 'The president's instincts are good, and I'm hoping the President will not get involved with the war. I think, if the United States actively bombs Tehran, the possibility of negotiation goes out the window.' Trump has sparred with both Massie and Paul over his domestic agenda, and multiple Republicans told CNN it appears that the White House is listening more to war hawks like Graham than his isolationist allies. Some of those Republicans pointed to Trump's dig at conservative commentator Tucker Carlson earlier this week, after Carlson accused the president of being 'complicit in an act of war' in Israel's strikes on Iran. Carlson also called on the US to decouple itself from Israel altogether — not providing any funding or weapons to assist its long-time ally. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen,' the president told reporters in response. Hill Republicans took notice of the flap. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the veteran Kentucky Republican and leading defense hawk, singled out both Carlson and Bannon to CNN on Monday. 'I think what's happening here is some of the isolationist movement led by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are distressed that we may be helping the Israelis defeat the Iranians — it's the same kind of complaint they had about helping Ukraine,' McConnell said in rare public remarks to reporters since leaving his leadership post. 'I would say it's been kind of a bad week for the isolationists.' Asked if he thinks the GOP's isolationist wing has too much sway with President Donald Trump, McConnell said: 'I think that remains to be seen. The president still has the opportunity do the right thing. I think he will. … I think we ought to help the Israelis win and help the Ukrainians win. It's in our interest to do that.'
CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Afghan ally detained by ICE after attending immigration court hearing
An Afghan man who worked alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers last week in San Diego. In a video obtained by CBS News, two unidentified ICE agents put Sayed Naser in handcuffs and escorted him from the federal courthouse in downtown San Diego after he attended a mandatory immigration hearing on Wednesday, June 11. "For more than three years I worked for the U.S. military back in my home country," Naser said in the video as the masked officers took him into custody. "I came here to make a better life. I didn't know this was going to happen like this for me." An Afghan ally who served alongside U.S. forces was legally paroled into the U.S. and showed up for his first hearing.@DHSGov detained him anyway—using a vague 'improvidently issued' excuse. He followed the rules. We have the video. This must stop.#AfghanEvac #DueProcess — #AfghanEvac (@afghanevac) June 13, 2025 Naser was legally paroled into the U.S in 2024, according to his lawyer, Brian McGoldrick. In addition to an active asylum case, he has a pending Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) case because of his long history supporting the U.S. military. SIVs are provided to foreign nationals who worked with U.S. military forces in war zones including Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Naser has no criminal record in the U.S. or Afghanistan, according to court records reviewed by CBS News. "This man served with our troops. He came through the front door. He followed every rule. And we locked him up anyway," said Shawn VanDiver, executive director for #AfghanEvac, a nonprofit that advocates for U.S. wartime allies. He said it's unknown how many Afghan allies have been detained by ICE officials. The Department for Homeland Security and ICE did not respond to a request for comment. Naser served as a civilian interpreter for the U.S. military in Afghanistan from 2015 to 2018. He and his brothers also co-owned a logistics company that provided anti-mining support to American troops, according to employment records viewed by CBS News. "This individual was an important part of our Company commitment to provide the best possible service for our clients, who were the United States Military in Afghanistan," says one employment document submitted as part of Naser's SIV application. But after the U.S. withdrew from the country in August 2021, his partnership with American forces put targets on the backs of Naser and his family. In 2023, Taliban fighters killed his brother and abducted his father at a family wedding. The attack drove Naser out of the country and forced his wife and children to flee their home. "I cannot return to Afghanistan under any circumstances because I am accused of collaborating with U.S. forces. From the Taliban's perspective, anyone who worked with foreign forces during the past 20 years is a spy, an infidel, and must be killed," Naser wrote in his asylum declaration. His family remains in hiding outside of Afghanistan. After his brother was killed, Naser fled to Brazil, where he was granted a humanitarian visa. He then made the more than 6,000 mile journey on foot through the Darién Gap before reaching Mexico. In 2024, he set up an appointment with U.S. Customs and Border Protection through the app formerly known as CBP One — which allowed migrants to schedule appointments at legal ports of entry — where he was granted lawful parole into the U.S. As part of his asylum process, Naser was required to attend an in-person hearing last week in front of a judge and a lawyer from the Department of Homeland Security. But when Naser showed up to court, the DHS lawyer said that his case was "'improvidently issued." "Nobody knows what that means," said McGoldrick, who tried to dispute the ruling. When pressed, the DHS lawyer refused to clarify further. "'Improvidently issued' is becoming ICE's new catch-all — a vague, unchallengeable justification being used to clear dockets and meet removal and detention quotas," said VanDiver. "It's being weaponized to put lawful, parole-compliant asylum-seekers in cells." When Naser left the courtroom after his hearing ended, he was immediately detained by ICE agents. Sayed Naser, an Afghan man who worked with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, is taken into custody by ICE officers at a courthouse in San Diego, California, on June 11, 2025. Image from video/@AfghanEvac Naser is now being held in the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego. According to McGoldrick, he could be kept there for up to three months while his asylum case is adjudicated. If he is denied asylum, Naser will be put on an expedited removal list and likely deported. His lawyer does not know where he would be deported to, and DHS did not respond to our request for more information. "He's still in shock. He cannot believe this is happening to him," McGoldrick said. Naser's wife, who remains in hiding with their children, found out about her husband's detention when she saw the video of his detainment on social media. Increase in arrests in courthouses The last few weeks have seen an increase in ICE arrests outside of immigration hearings in courthouses around major American cities. In May, CBS News reported that the Trump administration was launching an operation to expedite the deportation of certain migrants by dismissing their cases and subsequently arresting them at courthouses around the country. The move shocked immigration advocates, as their clients are legally required to show up at their hearings. Public arrests outside courts in Los Angeles led to more than a week of demonstrations as protesters faced off against thousands of law enforcement officials, including the National Guard. On Sunday, Mr. Trump called on ICE to increase arrests in order to achieve his goal of the "largest Mass Deportation Operation of Illegal Aliens in History," according to a post on Truth Social, the social media platforms he owns. Reports from within the administration say that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem have been pushing agencies since late May to meet a higher quota of deportations — including as much as 3,000 immigration-related arrests per day. Typically, ICE agents need probable cause in order to detain someone to check their immigration status. This requires a higher standard of evidence pointing to an individual's alleged violation of immigration law. It's not clear in Naser's case what evidence there is that he was violating the law, his lawyer said. ICE provided a warrant for Naser's arrest to his attorney outside the courtroom after he was detained. "It's really shocking what's happening in courthouses in San Diego and around the country," said McGoldrick. "You walk down the hall and it's like you're walking down executioner's row. There's all these armed personnel just eyeballing everybody as we come down. It's just so intimidating that our clients are terrorized." Uncertain future for thousands of Afghans The Trump administration has demonstrated a sharp turn away from supporting Afghans who worked with the U.S. government in the military's two-decade-long conflict with the Taliban. In May, Noem announced that the administration was terminating Temporary Protected Status for Afghans. TPS is an immigration designation that allows people from countries deemed dangerous by the U.S. to live and work in the United States without being detained by DHS. Nearly 11,000 Afghans who are in the U.S. under TPS will be at risk of deportation when the change in policy comes into effect in mid-July, said VanDiver. Earlier this month, the Trump administration also instituted a travel ban on nationals from Afghanistan and 11 other countries, citing a need to address security concerns. Ahead of this announcement, over 100,000 Afghan wartime allies and their families had been vetted and cleared to enter the U.S., says #AfghanEvac. They are now unable to travel to the U.S. unless they are granted an SIV visa and can fund their own travel, without government support. Many live in danger of retribution from the Taliban. "Afghanistan remains under the control of the Taliban. There are still assassinations, arbitrary arrests, and ongoing human rights abuses, especially against women and ethnic minorities," said VanDiver. "The United States cannot abandon its allies and call that immigration policy."
