
How Trump's Praise, Israel's Claims And A Global Fallout Are Rewriting The Iran Nuclear Narrative
Israel-Iran Conflict: US President Donald Trump, during a media briefing at the NATO summit, made a statement that left the global diplomatic corridors buzzing. When asked if he would consider easing sanctions on Iran, he did not respond with policy talk or threats. Instead, he acknowledged Iran's courage during recent hostilities. 'They fought with grit,' he said.
He spoke of Iran's struggle. Of a battered nation. Of a people trying to recover. 'If they want to sell oil, let them sell oil. They need money to rebuild,' Trump said.
His tone struck an unusual mix of firmness and flexibility. He confirmed an upcoming conversation with Iranian officials next week.
'Maybe we strike a deal. Maybe we don't. They have gone back into their world for now,' Trump said.
Then came the declaration – 'They won't have nukes. That is done. We destroyed that.'
Israel Declares Fordow Nuclear Site 'Dead'
While Trump's words settled, Israel moved with precision. The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission announced that the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran – long a symbol of Tehran's nuclear ambition – was now completely disabled.
Israel claimed American and Israeli strikes had wrecked key structures at the site. 'The damage to infrastructure is total,' the report said.
According to the Israeli side, the coordinated assault has dragged Iran's nuclear programme back by several years. The assessment warned that if Iran's access to nuclear materials remains blocked, the disruption could be indefinite.
US Leaks Spark Confusion
But a classified early assessment from the Pentagon painted a different picture. The intelligence review suggested the strikes may have caused only limited setbacks – perhaps months, not years.
The nuclear programme, the report hinted, was far from crippled. Trump dismissed the leak with scorn. 'The CNN and The New York Times are spreading fake news,' he snapped.
Russia Walks Out of IAEA Cooperation
The airstrikes also shook Iran's allies. Russia made a sharp move. It announced it would sever its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' watchdog on nuclear activity.
Kremlin's spokesperson Dmitry Peskov linked the decision to what he called 'unprovoked' strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. He accused the West of undermining the IAEA's credibility.
For Russia, the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities in Iran crossed a line. It was a political message as much as a diplomatic divorce. Moscow had earlier condemned the strikes but had not hinted at severing IAEA ties. This week's exit marked a major shift.
Earlier, Iranian parliament has also announced its exit from the IAEA.
China Warns of Nuclear Disaster
Beijing, too, stepped in. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke to Iran's top diplomat Abbas Araghchi. Their conversation followed a strong warning from China's foreign ministry.
Spokesperson Lin Jian posted on X, calling the strikes a 'severe violation' of the UN Charter. He said the attack could trigger a nuclear disaster. 'The international community must oppose this,' the post read.
China's official statement reinforced its support for Iran's right to defend sovereignty and national security. The language was pointed. So was the intention. Beijing urged a push toward real ceasefire and restoration of peace in the Middle East.
Where the Conflict Goes from Here
Trump's praise for Iran's courage. Israel's claim of an obliterated nuclear facility. Pentagon leaks painting a murkier picture. Russia's abrupt fallout with the IAEA. And China's looming fears of a nuclear mishap. The latest strikes on Iran have done more than damage bunkers. They have blown open a new chapter of global realignment and exposed deep fractures in how nations perceive power, diplomacy and nuclear restraint.
The world watches. Talks are promised. But trust, once again, remains on shaky ground.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
41 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
The alluring fantasy of a quick win in Iran
AFTER THE elation, the doubt. President Donald Trump said that 'Operation Midnight Hammer', had 'totally obliterated' Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. But now an early intelligence assessment leaked on June 24th suggests the nuclear programme has only been set back by months and that some enriched uranium may have been spirited away. The report is an early 'low-confidence' assessment that both the Trump administration and Israeli sources eschew. But it illuminates a bigger problem. Mr Trump wants a quick-fix to the Iran nightmare with a single, clarifying mega-strike, a ceasefire and then prosperity. Instead America faces years of uncertainty over Iran's capabilities and intentions. As a result Mr Trump's assumption—that he can have a one-day Middle East military triumph and then quickly secure a lasting deal—may be badly misplaced. PREMIUM President Donald Trump has continued to state that the US strikes on Iran set back the nuclear programme by decades(AP) The good news for Mr Trump is that his ceasefire, declared on June 24th, appears to be holding. And the leaked assessment, from the Defence Intelligence Agency, is hardly definitive. It is likely to be revised and there will be competing evaluations from other agencies. Israeli sources emphasise satellite images alone reveal relatively little about the strikes' efficacy below ground and insist that Israel has kept track of the highly enriched uranium. J.D. Vance, the vice-president, said on June 23rd that the uranium was safely 'buried'. The International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN watchdog, reckons that major damage was caused at the two big enrichment sites. Experts say the blast may have created enough of a shock-wave to damage fragile centrifuges even if it did not destroy the main underground concrete structures. Read all our coverage of the war in the Middle East Yet this maddening uncertainty is not a bug—it is an inherent feature of this kind of air-war and bombing operation. And it highlights a deeply uncomfortable question. If Iran's leaders cling to power and continue to pursue a clandestine nuclear programme, dealing with it will require America's long-term military commitment to the region. Is it really up for it? The answer is 'maybe'. Mr Trump has spoken of the ceasefire lasting 'for ever' and made a comparison with Hiroshima: 'That ended that war. This ended the war'. On June 24th Mr Vance hailed a new foreign-policy doctrine that would 'change the world', consisting of a 'clearly defined' American interest, 'aggressive' negotiation and the use of 'overwhelming force' if required. In fact the outlook on Iran is far murkier. America may delegate the task of suppressing Iran's military and any ongoing nuclear programme to Israel, whose spies have shown exceptional skill in penetrating the regime and whose pilots control the skies. Yet Israel is at the limit of its capabilities and Iran will rebuild its defences. America may have to give constant support and weapons. It may be called on to defend Israel and the Gulf from Iranian strikes. And it may have to send bombers back to hit targets beyond Israel's reach. America has become a co-belligerent with Israel and taken ownership of the Iran nuclear file. If the regime collapses Mr Trump may be asked to try to stop the chaos spreading across the region. Some in America fear this may amount to a new 'forever war' with the effort to pacify a recalcitrant Iran drawing America into a quagmire. Some draw a parallel with the first Gulf war in 1991, when America expelled Iraq from Kuwait but did not depose Saddam Hussein. Instead it tried to control his weapons of mass destruction and thuggery through inspections, embargoes, no-fly-zones and bombing. 'If you just changed one letter in the country's name it could all become eerily familiar,' says Richard Fontaine of the Centre for a New American Security, a think-tank in Washington. 'The least likely scenario is that Iran just disappears as a security threat.' The exasperating containment of Iraq was a prelude to the invasion of 2003. An alternative is to try to turn a transient military success into a stable political settlement. Previous presidents have been burned. Ronald Reagan's peacekeeping mission in Lebanon brought suicide attacks on American soliders and diplomats in 1983. Barack Obama's air campaign in Libya in 2011 caused a still-raging civil war. Mr Trump has claimed Mr Reagan's slogan of 'peace through strength'. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, says 'promising' talks are happening with Iran, directly and indirectly. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, says it is ready to resolve its differences with America 'within the framework of international norms'. The priority is to restrict Iran's nuclear programme (though the effort might plausibly extend to ending Israel's war in Gaza and fostering a normalisation deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia). The most convincing agreement would be one that forces Iran to give up its capacity to enrich uranium and surrender its stock of fissile material enriched to 60%, which is close to the weapons-grade. But Iran has always insisted on the right to enrich for 'civilian' purposes. And Mr Trump may find that his blandishments about trade, money-making and friendship with America are not enough to tempt newly empowered hardliners in Iran who are rattled after the success of Israel's attack and nervous at their lack of deterrence. The harder Mr Trump pushes for 'zero enrichment', the harder it will be to persuade Iran into a deal. Mr Trump has argued to his base that a short burst of demonstrative force yields decisive results. If he now threatens an immediate return to military action, prominent MAGA devotees will complain that he is leading America into another Middle Eastern debacle. And if he commits to a strategy of long-term containment, some of his own strategists will balk at the aircraft carriers, planes and air-defence systems diverted from Asia. The administration's interim national defence guidance, from March, declared that America's military priorities henceforth were defending the homeland and preventing a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. It has only taken three months for events to impose a totally different reality. Sign up to the Middle East Dispatch, a weekly newsletter that keeps you in the loop on a fascinating, complex and consequential part of the world.


Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Operation Sindhu: 3,170 Indians evacuated from war-struck Iran so far
By Sharmistha Shivhare As tensions escalated in West Asia following missile exchanges between Iran and Israel, the Indian government launched Operation Sindhu last week to safely evacuate Indian nationals caught in the crossfire. So far, a total of 3,170 Indians have been brought back home, with the most recent flight arriving from Mashhad, Iran, at Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport on Tuesday. Passengers disembarking from the flight described the operation as smooth and well-managed, crediting Indian embassy officials for their on-ground support. Several evacuees noted that they were moved from their homes to secure hotels, provided with meals, and continuously assisted by embassy staff. Wafiya Batoon, a student of Islamic studies, said that 'everything from accommodation to travel was taken care of, with no logistical or administrative issues.' Abbasi Zehra, who had travelled to Iran for a religious pilgrimage with her family, noted that the cooperation between Iranian authorities and Indian officials was evident throughout the evacuation. 'We stayed two days in the hotel under embassy arrangements, and on the third day, we were flown back safely,' she said. Another evacuee, Shehenshah Haider, a Persian language student at Al Mustafa International University, shared how the war disrupted his original travel plans. 'My flight scheduled for the 17th was cancelled. But the Indian embassy contacted me directly. They arranged for my transport from Isfahan to Mashhad and ensured I was safe and well taken care of,' he said.


Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Pete Hegseth to hold news conference today on Iran strikes; Trump says ‘sucess was legendary but…'
US President Donald Trump announced that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will hold a 'major' press conference Thursday morning, as the administration pushes to quell doubts over the damage done inflicted by American strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. "Hegseth, together with Military Representatives, will be holding a Major News Conference tomorrow morning at 8 A.M. EST at The Pentagon, in order to fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots," Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday. "The News Conference will prove both interesting and irrefutable," he said. Trump on Wednesday rejected an early intelligence assessment that the United States strikes inflicted only a marginal setback on Iran's nuclear program, insisting that his country's spies did not have the full picture and defending his own swift conclusion that American bombs and missiles delivered a crushing blow. 'This was a devastating attack, and it knocked them for a loop,' Trump said as his administration scrambled to support his claims, made only hours after the attack, that Iranian nuclear facilities were 'completely and fully obliterated.'