Trump says US won't kill Iran's supreme leader, 'at least not for now'
Trump says US won't kill Iran's supreme leader, 'at least not for now'
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Iran claims attacks by Israel could not have happened without US
An Iranian spokesperson said attacks from Israel could not have happened without U.S. cooperation.
President Donald Trump said the U.S. knows where Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is, but won't kill him "at least not for now."
"We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Trump said in the post.
On June 15, Trump rejected an Israeli plan to kill Ali Khamenei, a senior U.S. official told USA TODAY. The U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks, confirmed that Israel was presented with an opportunity to kill Khamenei but Trump objected to the plan and steered it off.
In a series of social media posts June 17, Trump indicated the US was involved in Israeli attacks, after saying over the weekend it was not
In one post, Trump demanded 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
31 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.
Time Magazine
32 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What to Know About the Trump Administration's Reversal on ICE Raids Guidance
U.S. immigration officials will continue conducting immigration raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, marking an apparently rapid reversal of guidance issued last week to exempt those worksites from the Trump Administration's mass deportations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials told staff in a call on Monday that agents must conduct raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, two people with knowledge of the call told The Washington Post. Multiple news outlets, including CNN and Reuters, have since confirmed the news. 'There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE's efforts,' Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Post. 'Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.' Trump's pledge to 'protect our Farmers' President Donald Trump has launched a mass-deportation operation since he took office for a second time in January, sparking outrage from Democratic lawmakers and prompting thousands of demonstrators to take to the streets to protest ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants. Trump has recently faced backlash from agriculture and hospitality executives over his hardline immigration agenda, the Post reported. On Thursday, he posted on Truth Social that 'changes are coming.' 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump said in his post. 'In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!' What changed—or didn't Despite the public pledge, a White House official told the Post at the time that the White House hadn't proposed any real policy changes. But three U.S. officials familiar with the situation told The New York Times that the Administration had instructed ICE officials to mostly halt raids and arrests at those worksites. 'Effective today, please hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels,' Tatum King, a senior ICE official, said in an email that was sent out as guidance to regional leaders of the branch of ICE that typically works on criminal investigations, as reported by the Times. Monday's reversal of that guidance comes after Trump posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he wants to 'expand efforts to detain and deport illegal Aliens in America's largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside.'
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mike Lindell verdict: MyPillow founder defamed former voting equipment company boss
A federal jury has found MyPillow founder Mike Lindell liable for defaming a former Colorado voting system executive after the 2020 presidential election. The Denver-based jury determined on June 16 that Lindell made "baseless conspiracy theories claiming election fraud in the 2020 election" and slandered Eric Coomer, a former director at Dominion Voting Systems, a North American company that makes and sells voting machines and tabulators. Coomer filed the suit in the District of Colorado in May 2022, claiming Lindell and two of his companies − MyPillow and FrankSpeech − helped spread a conspiracy theory that he rigged the election against President Donald Trump. More: Why is Mike Lindell in court? MyPillow CEO on trial for defamation lawsuit According to the 67-page suit obtained by USA TODAY, Lindell previously called Coomer "a traitor." The trial started on June 2 and lasted two weeks, online court records show. 'We're thrilled with the verdict,' said Coomer's attorney, Charles Caine, told Colorado Public Radio (CPR), after the jury handed down its decision, adding his client has "gone through a lot and he's still going to be looking over his shoulder... Hopefully this serves as deterrence for individuals working on our elections from being targeted." USA TODAY has reached out to Caine as well as Lindell's attorneys. Lindell, 63, has publicly defended his claims that the 2020 election was rigged. "They're coming after me and MyPillow for telling the truth about our elections!" Lindell wrote on May 31 on Facebook. After the verdict, Lindell was ordered to pay nearly $2.3 million in damages, CPR reported, a number nowhere near the award amount Coomer had requested ($62.7 million). Jurors, the outlet said, rejected claims Lindell and his two companies were responsible for comments made by others on social media platforms he controlled. According to court documents, Lindell aligned himself with podcaster Joseph Oltmann to spread a conspiracy theory he was involved in rigging voting systems during the 2020 election. Lindell spread a claim that originated from Oltmann, who is alleged to have made up a story about overhearing someone identified only as 'Eric, the Dominion guy' claiming to have rigged the election against Trump. Oltmann disclosed the alleged claims on an episode of his podcast, which aired after former President Joe Biden's victory in November 2020, according to the lawsuit. The podcaster also said he infiltrated the conference call for a left-wing political group, which is where "Eric" made the claims on an unspecified date months before the election, the complaint says. Lindell amplified the claim online, jurors found, causing threats against Coomer, whom Oltmann later identified as the anonymous 'Eric." Natalie Neysa Alund is a senior reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at nalund@ and follow her on X @nataliealund. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Mike Lindell found liable for defaming former voting system executive
