Vladimir Putin Issues Warning as Donald Trump Weighs Iran Strikes
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.
Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a warning Friday as U.S. President Donald Trump weighs strikes on Iran in support of Israel's ongoing conflict with its Middle East rival.
Answering questions on a variety of issues at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin voiced concern about the spiraling conflict, saying we "are strongly worried about what's going on around the Iranian nuclear facilities and possible consequences."
This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
This article includes reporting by The Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump says the US doesn't have to meet NATO spending goal
President Donald Trump said Friday that the U.S. shouldn't have to abide by the same defense spending standards as the rest of NATO — potentially antagonizing leaders from the rest of the alliance days before he's to meet with them in The Netherlands. Trump has long demanded that NATO states spend 5 percent of their GDP on defense but has never said if the U.S. should be included in that or not. The U.S. is currently at 3.4 percent. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said, responding to a question about his 5 percent defense spending goal. 'We've been supporting NATO so long. … So I don't think we should, but I think that the NATO countries should, absolutely,' he added. The summit kicks off Tuesday in The Hague with the leaders of 32 member states coming together to plan spending goals and reaffirm NATO force structure and deployment plans. Most NATO states spend just over 2 percent of their GDP on defense currently, with a growing number having outlined plans to get to around 3 percent over the next year or two. Trump's spending demand has hovered over the alliance since his reelection however, and the alliance has come up with a novel solution: Call for 3.5 percent on defense, with the remaining 1.5 percent taken up by domestic infrastructure and cybersecurity spending. Trump's apparent opting out of the higher target is unlikely to sit well with Republicans on Capitol Hill who've pushed for larger Pentagon budgets and have clashed with the administration over defense spending. Both Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees respectively, have been pushing to drive U.S. defense spending to 5 percent of GDP. They and other GOP leaders criticized Trump's budget plans for keeping annual defense funding flat, save a one-time investment from Republicans' megabill of spending and tax cuts. Hitting that goal would mean a roughly $1.4 trillion defense budget for the Pentagon. Only Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have committed to 5 percent number so far, but most of the rest of the alliance is expected to follow suit at The Hague. There are outlines, however. The Spanish government, which is one of the lowest spenders on defense in the alliance, flatly rejected the 5 percent goal this week. In a letter to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte obtained by POLITICO, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said his government 'cannot commit to a specific spending target in terms of GDP at this summit.' Other allies who have spent more on defense in recent years are also grappling with how to keep pumping more money into their militaries. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius said this month during a NATO meeting in Brussels. Seth Jones, president of the defense and security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a press call Friday that U.S. defense spending, at 3.4 percent of GDP, is 'lower than during any time during the Cold War,' and the Trump administration's defense budget as a percentage of GDP 'is likely to be lower than the Carter administration's defense budget in the 1970s.' Connor O'Brien contributed to this report.
15 minutes ago
Prospects for diplomacy dim after Trump rejects Europe's efforts on Iran: ANALYSIS
Under a self-imposed deadline to pursue diplomacy with Iran and with no direct negotiations with the U.S. on the horizon, President Donald Trump acknowledged on Friday that the situation in the Middle East appeared to be deadlocked -- but said he would still give the Iranians a chance to "come to their senses." "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," the president said. Earlier in the day, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrapped up talks with several of his European counterparts in Geneva, but reiterated Iran's demand that Israel stop attacks on the country before it would be willing to seriously pursue any negotiations. Asked whether he would ask the Israelis to hold back, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now." "If someone is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if someone is losing," he said. "But we are ready, willing and able and have been speaking to Iran and we'll see what happens." The president also dismissed the talks held in Europe, playing down the already low expectations for a breakthrough. "They didn't help," Trump said of the discussions. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one." But despite the president's claim, Iran has so far rebuffed a standing offer from the U.S to resume nuclear negotiations. Some administration officials have argued that the president's posture is setting the stage for Iran to ultimately cave—betting that the regime will bend under regular Israeli bombardment and ultimately back off from key demands on enriching uranium under a new nuclear deal with the U.S. They also see Iran's leadership as scrambled by the assault from Israel and predict it might take several days before it is logistically possible to convene a meaningful round of negotiations with the U.S. Meanwhile, as sharp differences between Israeli and American assessments on Iran's nuclear abilities have come to the forefront, Trump has also showcased distrust for his own intelligence community, including his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. On Friday, Trump was asked about Gabbard's testimony to Congress in March that the U.S. assessed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. "She's wrong," Trump said flatly. Shortly after Trump spoke, Gabbard criticized the news media, posting on X, "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." The president's decision to hold back on hitting Iran has frustrated Israeli officials, who have been privately pushing their case for U.S. military involvement for months, according to officials familiar with the matter. At the United Nations Security Council on Friday, Israel's permanent representative to the body Danny Danon insisted his country could go it alone. "This isn't just Israel's fight, it is the world's fight. And if no one else will fight it, we will," he declared. But as Trump ponders military action and its possible consequences, analysts say giving Iran extra time may come with its own risks. "Iran could use the talks simply to buy time in the conflict or, at worst, to shift around its nuclear material and sprint to a bomb, although it would presumably be difficult to fully develop a nuclear weapons capability amid an ongoing war," said Heather Williams, the director of the Project on Nuclear Issues and a senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Already, the security of tens of thousands of Americans in the Middle East is already in peril. According to the State Department, it has now provided "information and support" to over 25,000 people seeking guidance regarding the security situation in Israel, the West Bank and Iran. The department is planning government evacuations for U.S. citizens in Israel but has warned it does not anticipate offering direct assistance to Americans in Iran.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Where troops in Middle East are most vulnerable to Iran strikes
Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are within Iran's striking distance should President Trump decide to wade into Israel's conflict with Tehran and directly attack the country. More than 40,000 American service members and civilians – as well as billions of dollars in military equipment – are in the Middle East, spread out across bases in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Those working in countries closest to Iran, including Iraq and Kuwait, would conceivably have only minutes to prepare for an incoming Iranian strike, a likely outcome should Trump order the U.S. military to join Israel's bombing campaign, experts say. 'If [Iran] had the ballistic missiles ready to go, those strikes could happen in under 15 minutes. Launched to target,' retired Col. Seth Krummrich, vice president at security consultancy firm Global Guardian, told The Hill. 'They move very quickly.' Israel last week unleashed a barrage of airstrikes on Iran that set off the largest conflict ever between the two regional adversaries, with Tehran responding with its own attacks. The war has threatened to pull in the U.S., which says it supports Israel's right to defend itself but has not directly involved itself in the bombing. Trump has not yet decided on possible American military action against Iran, telling reporters through his top spokesperson that he would make his decision within a fortnight. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' according to the Trump statement relayed by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday. But Iran has already threatened to directly attack U.S. forces should they enter Israel's war campaign, with the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warning on Wednesday that 'Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage.' Tehran's threats aren't idle, as the country has retaliated against Washington in the past, most notably in January 2020, when Trump in his first term ordered an airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force. The strike, which happened as Soleimani traveled to Baghdad, prompted a swift response from Iran, which days later hammered Al Asad Air Base in Iraq and another U.S. base in Erbil with 13 ballistic missiles. While no Americans were killed in the largest ballistic missile attack ever against U.S. forces abroad, more than 100 were later diagnosed and treated for traumatic brain injuries. Now, with Trump reportedly considering using the GBU-57 – known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or so-called 'bunker buster' bomb – to damage Iran's Fordo nuclear enrichment facility, a similar attack from Tehran could soon be at hand. 'If there was to be a U.S. attack like they dropped the big bunker buster, if that happened, then I would assume that you would see an Iranian missile strike aimed at one or multiple U.S. bases,' said Krummrich, a former Special Forces officer in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the face of such a threat, military officials move to pull valuable assets out of the bases deemed most likely to be attacked, he said, pointing to the departure of some aircraft from Al Asad Air Base, as seen in public satellite imagery this week. He guessed that Al Asad Air Base, where many of the roughly 2,500 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are located, as the most likely target given its close proximity to Iran and the fact that it's been hit in the past. Iran 'would tend to not want to poke the eye' of the United Arab Emirates, where 3,500 U.S. military personnel are located, or Qatar, home of Al Udeid Air Base, the largest U.S. military site in the Middle East, Krummrich predicted. About 10,000 American forces are at Al Udeid, the regional headquarters for the U.S. Central Command. In addition, 13,500 U.S. troops are stationed across five bases in Kuwait, 9,000 military and civilian personnel are at the Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, and hundreds more troops placed elsewhere on bases run by Jordan, Syria and Oman. The former head of Centcom, retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel told The Hill that Middle East bases have protective measures built into them to reduce risk, pointing to the aircraft moved from more vulnerable installations, 'But of course, we have a lot of diplomatic facilities, we have a lot of private sector interests there that could be vulnerable as well,' said Votel, now at the Middle East Institute. So, There's a lot of opportunity for Iran here.' U.S. bases and those that house American troops are also at risk of being attacked by Iran-back militias in the region, like in the case when three Army soldiers were killed in a drone attack on a small U.S. outpost in Jordan in January 2024. Following Israel's strikes on Iran on June 13, three drones were shot down near Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq, The Associated Press reported. At least four other U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria have come under fire from Tehran-supported militants since Israel's bombing campaign began, including three installations in northeastern Syria between June 14 and 15, according to local reports. Asked about the attacks, a spokesperson from U.S. Central Command would not confirm or deny whether they took place. 'We are aware of these reports but have nothing operational to provide,' they said, pointing further queries regarding the conflict between Israel and Iran to the White House. U.S. officials this week have insisted that U.S. forces are well prepared to respond to any Iranian-launched attacks, surging more firepower to the Middle East including the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group. The Pentagon also has moved refueling tanker aircraft to the nearby European theater, and placed warships in the Mediterranean Sea to help shoot down Iranian missiles targeting Israel. The Nimitz is set to take over from the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, currently in the Arabian Sea to provide security for U.S. forces near the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, but the two vessels will likely overlap for several days. More covertly, the Air Force earlier this week moved a dozen F-16 fighter jets from a base in Italy to Prince Sultan, Saudi Arabia, according to Aurora Intel, which reviews open source information in the Middle East. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday declined to say whether he had been asked to provide Trump with military options for Tehran, saying during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that he 'wouldn't disclose that in this forum.' But he added that his job is 'to make sure the president has options, is informed of what those options might be, and what the ramifications of those options might be.' Hegseth also on Wednesday told senators that 'maximum protection' measures were in place in the region. Asked by The Hill whether the protections could adequately repel an Iranian attack, a Pentagon spokesperson referred the outlet to Hegseth's post to X on June 16, when the Defense secretary announced the 'deployment of additional capabilities' to the Middle East. 'Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these deployments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region,' he said.
