Trump to make Iran war decision in 'next two weeks'
Trump to make Iran war decision in 'next two weeks'
US President Donald Trump has left the world guessing whether the US will join Israel's strikes against Iran. Photo: Reuters
US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he will decide whether to join Israel's strikes on Iran within the next two weeks, as there is still a "substantial" chance of talks to end the conflict.
Trump's move to hit the pause button could open up space for diplomacy, after days of fevered questions about whether or not he would order US military action against Tehran.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt read out a message from Trump after what she called "a lot of speculation" about whether the United States would be "directly involved" in the conflict.
"Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Trump said in the statement.
Trump has set two-week deadlines that subsequently shifted on a series of other tough topics in the past, including the Russia-Ukraine war – but Leavitt denied he was putting off a decision.
"If there's a chance for diplomacy, the president's always going to grab it, but he's not afraid to use strength as well," Leavitt said.
At the same time Leavitt reinforced the sense of urgency, telling reporters that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in the space of a "couple of weeks".
"Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon. All they need is a decision from the supreme leader to do that, and it would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon," she said.
Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying that its programme is for peaceful purposes. (AFP)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
31 minutes ago
- RTHK
Appeals court sticks with Trump on National Guard sway
Appeals court sticks with Trump on National Guard sway Anti-Trump protesters come up against a National Guard platoon in Los Angeles. File photo: Reuters A US appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump could continue control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom. In a unanimous 38-page ruling on Thursday, the three-judge panel said Trump's "failure to issue the federalization order directly 'through' the Governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard". Trump was within his rights when he ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard into service for 60 days to "protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property", the judges wrote. In a post to Truth Social Thursday night, Trump celebrated the decision and called it a "BIG WIN." "All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done," he wrote. Last week, a lower court judge had ordered Trump to return control of the California National Guard to Newsom, saying the president's decision to deploy them to protest-hit Los Angeles was "illegal". Newsom hailed the earlier decision saying Trump "is not a monarch, he is not a king, and he should stop acting like one". Trump, who has repeatedly exaggerated the scale of the unrest, also sent 700 US Marines to Los Angeles despite the objections of local officials, claiming that they had lost control of the "burning" city. It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard over the wishes of a state governor. Trump appointed two of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel, and former president Joe Biden appointed the third, the New York Times reported on Thursday. (AFP)
South China Morning Post
31 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
China's 6G-powered warfare system, Xi urges ceasefire in Middle East: SCMP's 7 highlights
We have selected seven stories from the SCMP's coverage over the past week that resonated with our readers and shed light on topical issues. If you would like to see more of our reporting, please consider subscribing Chinese researchers have developed a revolutionary electronic warfare weapon using 6G technology. Leveraging a next-generation signal processing mechanism, this system can deliver overwhelming advantages against modern military radars, according to researchers involved in the project. In a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for an end to the fighting between Israel and Iran, urging the countries, 'especially Israel', to cease fire to prevent the situation from escalating and avoid a spillover of the conflict. An Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner. Photo: Shutterstock Hong Kong aviation authorities have told Air India to submit a report after one of its Boeing 787-8 Dreamliners departing the city on Monday had to return when the pilot suspected a technical issue less than half an hour into the flight.
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Bunker busters: what Israel needs and Trump must decide
As Israel escalates its confrontation with Iran, Donald Trump faces a defining foreign policy test. The choice before him is not between diplomacy and war. Diplomacy has largely been exhausted; war, in some form, is already underway. The real question is more consequential and more concrete: should the United States supply Israel with its most formidable non-nuclear weapon—the 30,000-pound bunker buster? These Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) are designed for a singular purpose: to destroy deeply fortified targets, such as Iran's hardened nuclear facilities. Fordow, Iran's mountain-buried enrichment facility, was built to survive conventional airstrikes. Only the MOP can breach it. For years, US policy rested on a mix of sanctions and diplomacy, backed by the unspoken threat of these weapons. That deterrent is now being tested. Israel, having demonstrated its military capabilities in Gaza and against Hezbollah, is now striking Iranian nuclear scientists and sites and senior military commanders. There is growing confidence in Jerusalem that it can push further, potentially taking out Iran's political leadership. Trump himself recently claimed to have vetoed an Israeli request to target Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. From Israel's perspective, Iran is advancing too close to nuclear breakout, and the margin for delay is vanishing. Yet Israel still lacks the means to destroy Iran's most hardened assets. Only the US can fill that gap—and must now decide whether to do so. The strategic case for such collaboration is clear. If the US wishes to avoid a protracted regional war, it must consider helping Israel strike preemptively—precisely and decisively—before Iran can entrench itself behind proxies or lash out at other US allies. Whether through direct transfers of MOPs or joint US–Israeli operations, Washington's willingness to act could send an unmistakable message: the free world is willing to act to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed power. Trump's instincts may align with this moment. No modern US president has embraced Israel's security priorities more overtly. From relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem to recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, Trump has built deep credibility with Israeli leadership. That credibility now grants him a narrow but meaningful opportunity to lead a coalition not of occupation but deterrence. This confrontation, however, is not solely Trump's to own. Netanyahu has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to bring the US into alignment with Israel's regional posture. In Gaza, the Biden administration maintained rhetorical distance while continuing to supply weapons. The current dilemma is a logical extension: will passive support become active cooperation? There is also a psychological layer to this moment. The memory of President Obama's unenforced 'red line' in Syria continues to haunt US credibility. When America declined to act after Assad's use of chemical weapons, adversaries took note. Iran, Russia and North Korea learned a critical lesson: US threats could prove hollow. That precedent now shapes this moment. Will the next move be guided by strength, by strategy, or by ego—or, as history often shows, a combustible mix of all three? Diplomacy remains relevant, but it is increasingly unclear whether it can contain Tehran's ambitions. The US is left debating whether treaties can hold Iran in check or if MOPs are the only remaining lever. One uncomfortable truth looms: the trajectory and intensity of this conflict—and perhaps the future of nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East—will depend largely on whether Washington chooses to act. Both allies and adversaries are watching and adjusting their calculations accordingly. Critics will warn of escalation. Transferring MOPs or employing them directly risks igniting open war, destabilizing oil markets and fueling anti-American sentiment. Yet these risks are not new. They have existed since Iran began inching toward the nuclear threshold. What is untenable is the illusion that inaction preserves peace. The current path is one of slow, steady escalation with no clear off-ramp. By enabling Israel to target Iran's nuclear infrastructure with surgical precision, the US may not be choosing the most aggressive course, but the least dangerous one. The only thing more dangerous than using the bunker buster now may be failing to use it when the time calls for it. This is not about boots on the ground. It's about recognizing a geopolitical moment that demands clarity, not caution. Iran has built its nuclear program under mountains for a reason. The question now is whether the United States is prepared (and believes it is right) to help Israel reach beneath them. The answer may be as consequential as any the US has made in the nuclear age. Kurt Davis Jr is a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also an advisor to private, public and state-owned companies and their boards as well as creditors across the globe on a range of transactions, including debt and equity financings, M&A and special situations (including financial restructurings). He can be reached at .
