Trump says Iran must give up nuclear weapon ambitions, urges diplomatic resolution
US President Donald Trump on Thursday said his administration is committed to resolving the Iran nuclear issue through diplomacy, but warned that Tehran must completely abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons."We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform."My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran. They could be a Great Country, but they first must completely give up hopes of obtaining a Nuclear Weapon," he further added.advertisementIRAN PLANS NEW NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT SITEThis comes after Iran announced on Friday that it has built and will activate a third nuclear enrichment facility, escalating tensions with the United States over the stalled nuclear deal. The move further alarmed Western governments already concerned by the scale of Iran's uranium enrichment, which far exceeds levels required for civilian purposes.
A sixth round of US-Iran talks is set to begin Sunday in Oman. Trump warned that if diplomacy fails, military action by either the United States or Israel remains on the table. 'I don't want to say imminent, but it looks like it's something that could very well happen,' he said. 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.'Earlier this week, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly claimed to have evidence that Iran's nuclear program is being used to develop weapons, intensifying Washington's concerns.advertisementAdding to the international pressure, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Thursday formally censured Iran for the first time in 20 years, citing non-compliance with nuclear enrichment regulations. In response, Iran's Foreign Ministry and Atomic Energy Organisation issued a joint statement, warning: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to respond to this political resolution.'Despite the rising stakes, Trump emphasized the importance of continuing negotiations: 'As long as I think there is a (chance for an) agreement, I don't want them going in because I think it would blow it.'Tune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump sparks outrage with rambling Russia remarks, critics say he's showing signs of cognitive decline
Donald Trump's mental health is questioned again after he gave a confusing defense of Russia. Trump appeared to wrongly say that Vladimir Putin fought for Russia in World War II, even though Putin was born 7 years after the war ended. People accuse Trump of " cognitive collapse " because of his strange remarks about Russia and Putin's role in WWII, as per reports. Trump said he talked with French President Emmanuel Macron about WWII commemorations before making his confusing speech about Putin. Trump said, "I happened to speak to President Putin at the time. Now in all fairness to him, he lost 51 million people and he did fight." Trump made a historical mistake because Putin was born in 1952, and World War II ended in 1945, so he couldn't have fought in it. Trump said, "It's kind of interesting, he fought with us in WWII and everyone hates him, but Germany and Japan are fine. One day someone will explain that. I like Germany and Japan too," as reported by the Irish Star. Trump and wrong facts Trump said Putin doesn't understand why people dislike Russia, even though they were allies in WWII and lost many lives. But reports say Trump didn't seem to know it was the Soviet Union, not just Russia, that fought in the war. The Soviet Union had 15 countries, like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. The modern Russian Federation was created only in 1991 after the Soviet Union broke up. Trump also gave wrong numbers. Live Events According to the Irish Star, the National WWII Museum says the Soviet Union lost around 24 million people in WWII, not 51 million as Trump claimed. Many people online made fun of Trump's comments. One person wrote, "Someone should tell him that Russia now attacks democracies, while Germany and Japan are peaceful friends." Another said, "There was no Russia during WW2." A third questioned, "Putin fought WWII? How old is he then?" Someone else said Trump's brain 'didn't develop normally' and called him 'very ignorant,' as reported by the Irish Star. Another person even said Trump should be arrested for treason, writing, 'Putin was born in 1952... Being friendly with a war criminal isn't foreign policy, it's betrayal.' Critics said Trump's remarks showed signs of "cognitive collapse" and questioned his ability to lead, "Age limits for the presidency FFS. One user wrote, "This old clown mumbling about WW2 is not good." Another said, "Dementia Donnie is rambling again." Someone else called the comments "delusional" and said the room went completely silent, according to the report by Irish Star. FAQs Q1. What's the buzz about Trump and Putin in WWII? Because Trump wrongly said Putin fought in World War II, even though he was born after the war ended. Q2. What is the "cognitive collapse" people mention about Trump? It means people think Trump's thinking and memory may be getting worse due to his confusing comments.
NDTV
32 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump May Try To Alter AUKUS Deal, But Here's Why He Won't Sink It
The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it's aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. The US undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, is reportedly going to oversee the review. The announcement has raised concern in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies that their predecessors have made to consider whether or not there's a particular purpose. The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it's not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same. There's a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this. But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict, he made the case the US could 'prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening'. So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily. He's spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an ' AUKUS agnostic ', though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough. And that leads to the fear the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia. As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs. Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame. There's also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production. There's no question there's a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it's anticipated the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months. Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines. Why The US Won't Spike The Deal I'm reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal. There are a few key reasons for this: 1) We're several years down the track already. 2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. 3) Industrially, we're on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don't fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations. Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China's potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean. China is acutely mindful of what we call the ' Malacca dilemma '. Overwhelmingly, China's trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia's island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear. This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured. Given nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo. As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario. Could Trump Be Angling For A Deal? As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US. This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia's overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defence spending is an appropriate thing to do. There's a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome. It's highly likely whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration 'doing a deal'. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a bad thing. This is what countries do. We talk a lot about the Trump administration's transactional approach to international relations. But it's actually not that different to previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal. So I'm reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship. Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of 'the art of the deal', but it won't sink the pact. However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia's interests are increasingly challenged? Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake. (Author: , Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) (Disclosure Statement: From 2015 to 2017 John Blaxland received funding from the US Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative (subsequently disbanded by the Trump administration). This was used to write a book (with Greg Raymond) entitled "The US Thai Alliance and Asian International Relations" (Routledge, 2021). John currently is a fulltime employee of the ANU.)
The Hindu
33 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Israel-Iran conflict to impact oil supply to India, increase export costs by 40-50%
Israel's attack on Iran and heightened tensions in the area pose significant risks to India in terms of curtailed supplies of oil and a 40-50% increase in the export costs, according to analysts and trade experts. Early on Friday (June 13, 2025), Israel said it had struck 'dozens' of nuclear and military targets in Iran, following which Iran reportedly retaliated with drone strikes of its own. Following these developments, global oil prices jumped about 8% in a single day, sparking fears that a sustained escalation could push inflation in India up, since it imports about 80% of its oil requirement. Problems for India 'The ongoing Iran-Israel conflict is likely to pose risks to oil supply even though India does not directly import large volumes of oil from Iran,' Amit Kumar, Partner and Energy & Renewables Industry Leader at Grant Thornton Bharat told The Hindu. 'India imports more than 80% of its crude oil needs. Hence, even if direct imports from Iran are minimal, global price spikes due to conflict will raise crude oil import costs.' Further, Mr. Kumar said that around 20% of global oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which is located between Iran to the north and the Arabian Peninsula to the south. 'Any disruption around the Strait of Hormuz may affect oil shipments coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE who are key suppliers for India,' he added. Disruptions in this area could also significantly hurt India's exports in terms of time as well as costs, according to Pankaj Chadha, Chairman of the Engineering Exports Promotion Council of India. 'The escalation of the conflict in the Middle East once again closes access to the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, which will have a huge cost and time escalation for Indian exports by ship,' Mr. Chadda told The Hindu. 'Going around the Cape of Good Hope will add about 15-20 days per ship and $500-1,000 per container, which effectively works out to a 40-50% increase in costs,' he added. Impact on prices While oil prices immediately surged following Israel's attack, they are expected to settle back down, according to Norbert Rücker, Head of Economics and Next Generation Research at Julius Baer. 'Our best guess is that this latest conflict eruption follows the usual pattern, with prices rising temporarily before returning to previous levels,' Mr. Rücker said. 'The oil market is very resilient today and supplies are unlikely at risk. Storage is ample, spare capacity plentiful, and exports grow outside of the Middle East.' The price of gold, too, surged to above Rs 1 lakh per 10 grams following the attack as investors flocked to 'safe haven' assets. 'In times of conflict and uncertainty, gold remains the go-to hedge for both institutional and retail investors,' Amit Jain, co-founder of Ashika Global Family Office Services said. 'What we're witnessing isn't just a knee-jerk reaction. It's a continuation of a broader structural uptrend driven by central bank accumulation, weakening fiat confidence, and long-term inflationary concerns.'
