US President Donald Trump says he 'may or may not' strike Iran as Israel's air war continues
US President Donald Trump says he has yet to decide whether the US will join Israel militarily in its campaign against Iran.
Asked whether the US was getting closer to striking Iran's nuclear facilities, Mr Trump said: "I may do it. I may not do it."
Speaking outside the White House on Wednesday, he added: "Nobody knows what I'm going to do...Iran's got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate.
"And I said, 'why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?'"
Mr Trump said Iran had reached out to W ashington, a claim Tehran denied, with Iran's mission to the UN responding: "No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House."
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran would not surrender and warned "any US military intervention will undoubtedly cause irreparable damage" to US-Iranian relations.
2:33
Strikes continue
Hundreds have reportedly died since Iran and Israel began exchanging strikes last Friday, when Israel launched an air assault after saying it had concluded Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, a claim Tehran denies.
Israel launched three waves of aerial attacks on Iran in the last 24 hours, military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin has said.
Israel deployed dozens of warplanes to strike over 60 targets in Tehran and western Iran, including missile launchers and missile-production sites, he said.
1:58
"The aim of the operation is to eliminate the existential threat to the State of Israel, significantly damage Iran's nuclear programme in all its components, and severely impact its missile array," he said.
Early on Thursday Israel issued an evacuation warning to residents of the Iranian Arak and Khandab regions where Iran has heavy water reactor facilities. Heavy water is important in controlling chain reactions in the production of weapons grade plutonium.
Meanwhile Iran says it has arrested 18 people it describes as "enemy agents" who it says were building drones for the Israelis in the northern city of Mashhad.
Iran also launched small barrages of missiles at Israel on Wednesday with no reports of casualties. Israel has now eased some restrictions for its civilians.
The US is working to evacuate its citizens from Israel by arranging flights and cruise ship departures, the US ambassador to the country has said.
In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer chaired a COBRA emergency meeting on the situation in the Middle East, with a Downing Street spokesperson saying: "Ministers were updated on efforts to support British nationals in region and protect regional security, as well as ongoing diplomatic efforts".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
15 minutes ago
- Sky News
UK attorney general concerns over Iran-Israel war
The UK government's top legal adviser has raised questions over whether Israel's actions in Iran are lawful, according to a source familiar with discussions inside the government. The source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer's thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK's potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict. If the attorney general deems Israel's actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general's concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict "unless our personnel are targeted". US President Donald Trump is currently weighing up his options for Iran and has repeatedly suggested the US could get involved militarily. This would likely involve the use of US B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear facility built deep into the side of a mountain at Fordow. These B-2 bombers could be flown from the UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strategically close to Iran. The US could also choose to fly them the far greater distance from the US mainland. Under a longstanding convention, the UK grants permission to the US for the base to be used for military operations. The US military could also request the use of the UK military base in Cyprus, for refuelling planes. Any refusal by the British could complicate US military action and, diplomatically, put pressure on the trans-Atlantic relationship. Israel's justification Israel has justified its war by claiming that Iran poses an "imminent" and "existential" threat to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited his country's own undisclosed intelligence claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Israeli government also claimed, without publishing evidence, that Iran was planning an imminent attack on Israel. They also cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which concluded that Iran had been "less than satisfactory" in "a number of respects" on its international compliance over its nuclear activities. It is not clear what aspect of Israel's justification for military action the attorney general has concerns over. The Attorney General's Office has told Sky News: "By long standing Convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed. "The Convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice." The UK armed forces have previously rallied to help defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone strikes when the two sides engaged in direct confrontation last year. 34:31 In April 2024, RAF typhoon jets shot down drones fired from Iran. The UK military was also involved in efforts to defend Israel from a ballistic missile attack in October 2024. But the UK has not been involved in the current conflict, which began when Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists as well as more definitive military targets such as missile launchers and commanders. The UN's nuclear watchdog has previously raised concerns about any attack against nuclear facilities because of the inherent danger but also the legality. A number of resolutions passed by the IAEA's general conference has said "any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency". Israel believes that Iran's nuclear programme has a military use, which makes it a legitimate target. It believes the regime is aimed to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran, however, has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has also condemned Israel's use of armed force against Iran as a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law. Interpretations of International Law Different countries adopt varying interpretations on the use of force in response to future attacks. The first legal position is that nations can act preventatively to deflect threats. The second is that they can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent. The third is that states can only act to deflect attacks that have occurred. That third position is generally considered to be too restrictive and the first as too broad. The grey area lies with the second position, and it rests with the definition of "imminent". The concepts of 'proportionality', 'necessity' and 'imminence' are key considerations. International law scholars have told Sky News that Israel may pass the 'proportionality' test in its actions against Iran because its targets appear to have been military and nuclear. But whether there was the 'necessity' to attack Iran at this point is more questionable. The attorney general would likely be considering the key legal test of the 'imminence' of the Iranian threat against Israel - and whether it is reasonable to conclude that an attack from Iran was "imminent" - as he weighs the legal advice issued to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. There is always nuance with legal advice, judgements rest on a variety of factors and advice can evolve. In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, the US and UK justified their action by arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction - a claim that turned out to be wrong. The then-attorney general's advice, which evolved, was central to Tony Blair's decision to join President Bush in attacking Iraq. The concerns of the attorney general emerged from enquiries by Sky News about whether the UK would help Israel to defend itself from attack by Iran. A separate source told Sky News that they would not steer us away from the claim over the attorney general's views. But the source said there is always nuance with legal advice and that it likely included other factors.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe must stand without the US – but the latest war in the Middle East shows it has no idea how
The rupture in the transatlantic relationship has left European leaders struggling to know how to think, let alone act, with any autonomy. Europe most urgently needs a mind of its own on the Middle East. Tragically, EU governments were just beginning to turn the page after a year and a half of complicity with the Israeli government's war crimes in Gaza. Donald Trump's obscene plans for a Gaza 'riviera' and 'humanitarian' initiatives that breach humanitarian principles were creating distance with the US, and European governments were starting to craft their own course. France and Saudi Arabia had planned a conference on the two-state solution, which might have led to Paris's recognition of Palestinian statehood. More significantly, the EU had accepted a review of the EU-Israel association agreement, which, in light of Israel's war crimes, should lead to the suspension of EU preferential trade with Tel Aviv, but now may not. However, Israel's military attack on Iran and the US's ambiguous yet evident support for this belligerence have upended Europe's shift towards greater autonomy and moral clarity. Of course, there is no love for the Iranian regime in EU capitals because of its human rights violations and military cooperation with Russia, notably in the war in Ukraine. Moreover, Europe rightly remains adamant that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. There is particular alarm over the International Atomic Energy Agency's most recent report on Iran's breaches of the non-proliferation treaty. But we have traditionally stood firm on the need to resolve the Iranian nuclear question through diplomacy. This is why in the early 2000s European negotiators invented the 'E3/EU format', comprising diplomats from France, Germany and the UK alongside the EU high representative to mediate on Iran's nuclear file. Today that world is gone. When Trump launched a direct negotiation with Iran, Europe was sidelined, excluded from any mediation process. Now, with Israel's military assault on Iran, we have failed to position ourselves with the necessary clarity: where was the denunciation of the bombing as a breach of the UN charter (article 2), and the additional protocol to the Geneva conventions (article 56), which specifically prohibits attacks against a state's nuclear facilities? It is one thing to uphold Israel's (or any other state's) right to self-defence. Quite another to legitimise pre-emptive strikes. This chronic impotence arises because Europe has traditionally viewed the world through a transatlantic lens. On most international issues, it has, for decades, worked hand-in-glove with Washington, using aid, trade, diplomacy, sanctions, defence and EU integration to support US foreign policy aims, convinced that the overarching values and interests were shared. Only on rare occasions have European countries openly opposed the US – as France and Germany did with the Bush administration over the US-led war on Iraq in 2003. Even where there is a difference of approach, Europe has sought to influence US foreign policy by mitigating its hard edges rather than thwarting it. European mediation on the Iran nuclear weapons question, for example, led to the joint comprehensive plan of action in 2015. And as the global rivalry between the US and China deepened, EU governments distanced themselves from US calls for decoupling the western and Chinese economies, instead promoting the softer alternative of 'de-risking'. Trump's foreign policy wrecking ball, however, has created a world in which Europeans have to stand on their own feet. And they are struggling. On Ukraine, Europe has learned the hard way and stands firm, maintaining financial and military assistance to Kyiv while exploring ways of filling the gaps in the event of US disengagement. But apart from Ukraine, we are at a loss. It is true that Europe has toughened up on Beijing; it is no longer starry-eyed about China's belt and road initiative and the strategic risk posed by Beijing's policies in Europe. The EU has started screening Chinese investments in Europe and raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. But Trump's mixed signals mean that Europe needs to figure out alone what it thinks and wants from Beijing. The EU cannot afford a trade war on multiple fronts, especially if its own trade talks with Washington derail. European governments also know that there is no way they can meet climate neutrality by 2050, now enshrined in law, without cooperating with China, which is a leader in the green economy. Even in the unlikely event of a comprehensive 'deal' between Trump and Xi Jinping, it's hard to imagine Europeans reverting to the old days in which China was solely viewed as an economic partner and ally in defence of multilateralism. Europeans need to develop their own ideas and policies independently of an erratic White House, but they don't know how to get there. In its political wavering on the latest war, Europe has neither won favour from Washington nor improved its standing with Israel. In the meantime, it has lost all credibility as an honest broker with Iran. The cherry on the cake is that Russia has angled itself as a possible mediator instead, with Trump winking at this preposterous proposition. The risk is that Europe will also now block its own route to a more morally principled approach to the horrors in Gaza: the coming days will tell if the EU suspends its trade agreement with Israel, or if that too is put on the back burner. Ukraine is Europe's foremost security interest. Yet war, chaos and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East – which could be the unwanted consequence of the Israel-Iran war – are more consequential for Europe than for the US. So far, the European response is a far cry from thought or action, independent of the US. Nathalie Tocci is a Guardian Europe columnist
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Democrats boycott Biden cognitive decline hearing
Democrats boycotted a congressional hearing into Joe Biden's mental decline. Just two Democrat senators attended a Senate judiciary hearing probing Mr Biden's mental acuity during his time in the White House, one of whom left after delivering their opening statement. Republicans, criticising the boycott, accused colleagues of continuing to 'stonewall' the investigation into the former US president's decline and claimed administration officials took advantage of his incapacity to take power for themselves. Seven of the nine Democrats on the committee opted not to attend, including Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar and New Jersey senator Cory Booker, both of them former contenders for the party's presidential nomination. The Senate judiciary Democrats group labelled the event a 'sham hearing', adding: 'We're focused on the critical challenges facing our nation. Back to business.' Both Democrats present on Wednesday, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Peter Welch of Vermont, criticised the investigation into Mr Biden's mental acuity. Mr Durbin claimed the committee had avoided grappling with serious issues, such as the killing of a Minnesota lawmaker on Saturday and the deployment of the National Guard to California, in favour of attacking a former president. 'Apparently, armchair diagnosing former President Biden is more important than the issues of grave concern which I have mentioned,' he said. Mr Welch, who was one of the first Democrats in Congress to call for Mr Biden to drop out of the presidential race last year, declared the hearing had no benefit for his constituents and left after his statement. 'Biden shielded from public scrutiny' Allegations about Mr Biden's mental decline have been given fresh impetus by the recent publication of Original Sin, by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson. According to the book, the former president forgot the names of close aides he had known for decades, paving the way for others in the administration – including Jill Biden, the first lady – to seize influence. 'Biden aides would say that she was one of the most powerful first ladies in history,' the authors wrote. Several Republicans criticised their counterparts for failing to turn up to the hearing, claiming it showed Democrats were still shielding Mr Biden from public scrutiny. The party eventually turned on Mr Biden following his dire debate performance against Donald Trump in June last year, piling pressure on the US president before he ended his re-election campaign and endorsed Kamala Harris, his vice president. Josh Hawley, the Republican senator for Missouri, said: 'The stonewall continues. They can't bear to show their faces in public.' Alabama senator Katie Britt said: 'The fact that we have none of my Democratic colleagues over here, that… [shows] they are not interested in correcting it for the future.'
