As Trump mulls next steps, rifts in his MAGA universe explode into public view
Banff, Canada: US President Donald Trump has demanded 'unconditional surrender' from Iran as its conflict with Israel escalates and tensions grow within Trump's Republican Party about whether the world's most powerful military should become directly involved in yet another Middle East theatre of war.
Iran and Israel exchanged missiles again in the early hours of Wednesday, and Israeli warplanes hit targets in Tehran, as Trump met with his National Security Council in the Situation Room to discuss how the US should respond. The White House confirmed Trump had also spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but would not divulge details of the call – and Trump, unusually, refrained from posting about it on social media.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said any US strike would have serious and irreparable consequences.
'Any form of US military intervention will undoubtedly be met with irreparable harm,' Khamenei's statement said via translators, according to the BBC.
'Wise people who know Iran, its people, and its history never speak to this nation in the language of threats, because Iranians are not those who surrender.'
Many of Trump's MAGA supporters hold staunchly isolationist views on foreign policy and oppose another US mission in the Middle East. But some hawkish Republicans are putting pressure on Trump to step in and unleash so-called 'bunker-buster' bombs on Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordow, which experts say could quickly enrich uranium from 60 per cent to a weapons-grade 90 per cent. If Trump agrees to that, however, it would directly involve the US in the conflict for the first time.
The president and his advisers met for 90 minutes in the Situation Room on Tuesday afternoon (Wednesday AEST), with US broadcaster CBS reporting the group went into the meeting divided on the path forward.
Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff were seen leaving the White House after the meeting, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, and other US military leaders.
But despite mounting speculation the US will step up its involvement in the conflict, the White House gave no update throughout Tuesday (Wednesday AEST) other than to acknowledge the national security meeting and the phone call with Netanyahu.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
32 minutes ago
- ABC News
Israel-Iran conflict raises questions about Australia's relationship with the US
As the world holds its breath over Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's arm wrestle about whether to drop US "bunker busters" on Iran's nuclear facilities, Australians have every right to feel confused and concerned. Is this proof we've inadvertently yoked ourselves as a nation to the whims of madmen? Does the US-Australia alliance — normally a source of national comfort — hide fearsome consequences? Will we be drawn into a new conflagration involving nuclear powers? Do we have a choice? Is our sovereignty at risk? Or is there a logic to what Israel is doing against Tehran's nuclear program that serves the interests of Australians, even if we dislike the process? Disarming a dangerous regime accused of spreading terror around the world must surely be a good thing? Either way, Richard Marles told 730 on Tuesday that "we are not a part of this conflict" in the Middle East even as the defence minister doggedly side-stepped questions from my colleague David Speers about the nature of our support for potential American involvement in Iran. "Can I just clarify, is the US allowed to launch any missions from Australia's northern bases?," Speers asked. "Well, again, there's a whole lot of speculation in all of that". Not really. Are they allowed to or not? "That's a simple question about what permission the US has regardless of what's happening right now," Speers pressed. "Well, we have a system of full knowledge and concurrence in terms of the way in which any country operates from Australia and that includes the United States," Marles eventually explained. The minister's choice of language was deliberate and strategic. And purposefully obtuse. Having full "knowledge and concurrence" of what American military forces are doing on Australian soil sounds vaguely comforting. In practice, it's a long way from what it might imply. Concurrence is not the same as "approval" or "consent" — both of which ascribe the granter an implicit and concrete veto. Concurrence leaves open the possibility that Americans do what they want from their Australian-based assets, perhaps seeking forgiveness rather than permission. Such questions and constructive ambiguity emerge every time an American administration signs up to war-fighting. But this is not a normal American administration and these are not normal times. The notion this generation of Australians can stand as aloof observers of far-off events could soon be tested. It was only on Monday that Marles triggered a frisson among the defence and strategic community when he stated that China's regional military build-up means "Australia's geography today is more relevant to great power contest than it has been at any point since the end of the Second World War, arguably at any point in our history". At face value — the notion that Australia now has a great big target on its back — is stating the bleeding obvious. But hearing it directly from an acting Labor prime minister is a significant escalation in rhetoric. Marles was emphasising — in essence — that Australia's unique geography and the traditional tyranny of distance means the country does not need to spend what the Trump administration is demanding. The problem, says Marles, is that the nation's strategic interests are in protecting global sea routes that supply Australia's fuels and export revenues. "Our risk is not so much the invasion of the continent," Marles told a security forum in Parliament House hosted by News Corp on Monday. "We are fortunate that we are an island nation surrounded by oceans. "But on the other hand, we are deeply reliant on our sea lines of communication." Almost all of our liquid fuels are imported by sea, he said, but also through export revenues. "And so that is our strategic risk. It's the disruption of those sea lines," he said. "It's the coercion that could result because of the disruption of such sea routes, it is that, and the stability of the region in which we live." The cost of managing those risks is to work with the US on regional security. And to contribute elsewhere when called upon. Anthony Albanese's frustrated attempts to have a meeting with Donald Trump at the G7 meeting in Canada this week have garnered much attention. Claims of being "snubbed" by the US president are silly, given he did the same to other leaders, including India's Narendra Modi. It's not obvious what benefit Albanese would have secured in Alberta either. Trump is in no mood to grant trade exemptions and any assurance about AUKUS is now subject to a Pentagon review. Should the first meeting between the men occur in September, as the government is indicating, then both of those issues might have been resolved. As the PM flies back to Australia, he is now considering whether to race off again next week to a NATO summit in The Hague, which Trump is expected to attend. This poses at least two risks. Critics may accuse Albanese of starting to look desperate in his efforts to meet the president. Can Trump be relied upon to even show up? And the prime minister would also be running headlong into Europe's debate about levels of military spending. NATO boss Mark Rutte wants defence spending lifted to 5 per cent of gross domestic product — which would make Albanese's stated goal of 2.4 per cent look pretty lame. For now, the government is arguing that it would be good to be in the NATO room given the level of global uncertainty. But it has not yet explained to Australians what that looks like in reality. Will the US be using Australian bases in its strikes on Tehran, for instance, by providing re-fuelling services as appeared to be the case for long-range US bombings on Houthi targets last year? Foreign Minister Penny Wong on Wednesday hardened her rhetoric against Iran's regime, having started the week urging the US and Israeli governments to show "restraint". Wong said the "fastest way out of the danger" is for Iran to "come to the table and stop any nuclear weapons program". "Ultimately, the Iranian regime has to make a decision about whether it is going to continue down a path that is so perilous. "The point that we are at, I think we can all see that Iran needs to come back to the table and stop any program." If the conflict erupts, many voters and no doubt parts of Labor's party room will fast become dissatisfied by Marles's "full knowledge and concurrence" explanation. The term itself dates back to the early 1970s, when the Whitlam government was outraged to learn that America was using the North West Cape facility to communicate with nuclear-armed Polaris submarines in the Indian Ocean. But it wasn't until the Hawke government that it was formalised in a 1988 treaty with the Reagan administration in relation to joint operations at Pine Gap. In a speech to parliament in June 2013, then Labor defence minister Stephen Smith said full knowledge "equates to Australia having a full and detailed understanding of any capability or activity with a presence on Australian territory or making use of Australian assets". 'Concurrence' means Australia approves the presence of a capability or function in Australia in support of its mutually agreed goals." Smith then added a critical caveat: "Concurrence does not mean that Australia approves every activity or tasking undertaken". Defence officials and experts — on both sides of the alliance — are understood to be in the midst of a spirited debate about whether "full knowledge and concurrence" (FK&C for short) needs to be reworked in light of the deepening use of Australian soil and waters for US military activities. It might have been enough to clarify things when the alliance was mostly about satellites and communications and over-the-horizon radar activities. But a hot war in the Middle East involving heavy bombers and other things is something quite different. Alex Bristow, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says the government would be "very reticent to get too directly embroiled in this conflict", though the Americans might request some level of support. Bristow notes the Australian Defence Department took the "unusual step" of confirming an ABC story that Australia's northern bases likely supported air-to-air refueling operations for US B-2 stealth bombers flying from the continental US for missions against Houthi targets in October. "Such bombers could play a key role in potential US strikes on Iran, as they can deliver large 'bunker-buster' bombs to hit underground targets that the Israelis would struggle to reach," he says. Australia may be called upon in other ways, "like contributing to maritime security around the Middle East, or backfilling US capabilities nearer to Australia to free up US forces to deploy to the Middle East". Marles's statement that "Australia's geography and continent would be crucial to any United States prosecution of a war against China will go down as a dark moment in Australia's history", said Paul Keating on Monday. Accusing the Labor government of having "intellectually ceded Australia to the United States as a platform for the US" for "military engagement against the Chinese state", Keating warned that Labor's "grassroots will not support Australia being dragged into a war with and by the United States over Taiwan". "The large majority of new members of the parliamentary Labor Party will not find community support for such a course of action," he said. Keating's anger is not isolated. Many continue to call for a proper debate over the terms and circumstances of America's involvement on our continent. A debate that many believe should have been conducted in full when the Gillard government and Smith agreed with the Obama administration to allow US troops to rotate through a base in Darwin.
Sky News AU
40 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
White House condemns Jim Acosta after he jokes about Trump's dead ex-wife: ‘Disgraceful human being'
Ex-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta joked in an interview posted Monday about President Donald Trump's deceased former wife's burial site and called her an example of an immigrant "doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do." Acosta, speaking on a "No Kings" Day episode of "The Contrarian" podcast with Jennifer Rubin, blasted Trump not only for the ICE raids, but argued he is a hypocrite on the immigration issue because of his immigrant wives, including his late first wife Ivana. "Where are the ICE raids at the Trump properties? Could somebody call ICE on the Trump golf course in Virginia? You're telling me there's nobody in there that is undocumented or has some kind of squirreliness going on with their paperwork?" he asked in a clip flagged by reporter Jason Cohen. "Give me a break." "How many immigrants has he married? He's got one buried at his golf course in New Jersey! Isn't she buried by the first hole or the second tee or something like that?" he asked, as Rubin and left-wing reporter April Ryan laughed. "Immigrants always doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do!" he joked further. Ivana, who is the mother of the president's three eldest children, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, is buried at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. She died in 2022. Jim Acosta joked on 'The Contrarian' podcast about one of President Donald Trump's ex-wives. Picture: 'The Contrarian' podcast White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital in response, "Jim Acosta is a disgraceful human being." Acosta, who left CNN in January, covered the White House for the network during Trump's first term and became one of his fiercest critics, often mixing on-air editorializing with his reporting. He's maintained his stridently left-wing tone since going independent this year. In recent weeks, Los Angeles, California, has become a powder keg of political controversy as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) performs raids throughout the sanctuary city. The Los Angeles Police Department has arrested a total of 575 individuals since the first weekend of protests, according to a media release. Authorities have battled protesters, hurling projectiles, setting fire to cars and launching fireworks at police officers in response to the ICE raids, with 10 members of law enforcement reporting injuries as of Monday, according to the LAPD. Originally published as White House condemns Jim Acosta as 'disgraceful human being' after he jokes about Trump's dead ex-wife
The Age
44 minutes ago
- The Age
Albanese is pulling away from the US – and Australians seem to love it
That's why the sooner the institutional perception of not just Trump, but the United States, adjusts itself, the better off Australia will be. The America that Australia regarded as its great friend and protector is not what it used to be, and it is not going to come back. Americans knew that Trump oversaw a deadly, failed insurrection to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost, but still elected him last November. He won 31 states to Kamala Harris' 19. This suggests Albanese needs to confront some big issues within the American relationship. How willing is he to spend some of his political capital to deal with them? It's four years since the AUKUS pact was announced jointly by Boris Johnson, Joe Biden and Scott Morrison – none of whose careers came to a happy end – as a way of getting the old Anglosphere gang back together to stave off the strategic rise of China. What amounts to Labor's original sin in opposition of endorsing AUKUS sight unseen is a mistake from which it will have to find a way to either extricate itself or initiate a renegotiation. AUKUS is crushingly expensive, with unreasonably long timelines, and is almost certainly undeliverable. And it did not countenance a reborn and rampant Trump. Loading There are signs that the government is at least trying to moderate its reliance on this ill-begotten agreement. It's slowly, slowly edging towards a strategic position that is less dependent on the US. When Albanese talks about 'an Australian way' of doing things and highlights his deeper engagement with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, our two northern neighbours that stand between us and China, he's signalling a slow movement out of the American orbit, or at least some hedging of bets. At the same time, the government has worked hard to normalise its relationship with China. The Labor Party, before its embrace of AUKUS, had a long history of a more independent security stance, going back to the Fisher government establishing the Australian navy before World War I, and John Curtin bringing troops back from Europe to defend Australia after the fall of Singapore in World War II. Labor also controversially opposed our involvement in the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Whether Albanese has the will and intestinal fortitude to continue to create a new path remains to be seen. But what is clear is that to some degree, he understands that his job for the next three years will be to try to ensure that neither China, our biggest trading partner and source of much of our prosperity, and the United States, our legacy security partner, do not individually paint a target on us to prove a point to each other. In other words, his main task will be to mostly play a dead bat and protect us from both of them. Albanese is right to leave open the possibility of being able to catch up with Trump next week on the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands. There are so many uncertainties about an Australian leader getting time with America's leader. That says much more about the latter than the former – and about Australia's future.
