US military evaluating options to prevent nuclear-armed Iran, general says
WASHINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - The top U.S. general overseeing American forces in the Middle East said on Tuesday there were a range of options when asked if the military was prepared to respond with overwhelming force to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
"I have provided the secretary of defense and the president with a wide range of options," U.S. Army General Michael "Erik" Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), told a congressional hearing.
Kurilla was responding to Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama, the chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, who asked if CENTCOM was prepared to respond with overwhelming force if Iran does not permanently give up its nuclear ambitions.
"I take that as a yes?" the Alabama Republican asked, after Kurilla responded.
"Yes," Kurilla said.
Iran said on Monday it would soon hand a counterproposal for a nuclear deal to the United States in response to a U.S. offer that Tehran deems unacceptable, while U.S. President Donald Trump said talks would continue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
China-US trade deal kicks the rare earths can down the road
LAUNCESTON, Australia, June 12 (Reuters) - The tentative deal between the United States and China may represent a retreat from the worst-case scenario of a total collapse of trade between the world's two biggest economies, but it creates more problems than it solves. President Donald Trump touted the agreement, which is still subject to final approvals on both sides, as a "great deal" that will be good for both countries. "We have everything we need, and we're going to do very well with it. And hopefully they are too," Trump told reporters prior to attending a performance on Wednesday evening at Washington's Kennedy Center. While not all the details are known, what has been revealed shows a deal that will probably hurt both economies, and not solve some of the pressing issues, such as China's dominance of the rare earths supply chain. The United States will impose tariffs of 55% on imports from China, while China can levy 10% on its purchases from the United States. This still represents a sharp increase in tariffs from the 25% on imports from China that was in place when Trump returned to the White House in late January. Tariffs at such a level are likely high enough to cause trade to shrink while boosting inflation in the United States, and lowering economic growth in both countries. If Beijing does keep 10% tariffs on imports of U.S. energy commodities, these will be high enough to ensure that virtually no U.S. crude oil, coal or liquefied natural gas enters China, eliminating one of the few products that China is able to buy in large quantities from the United States. It's also questionable whether the tariffs will be enough to prompt more manufacturing in the United States, or whether they will simply cause some production to shift from China to countries with lower import duties. Trump did single out rare earths when talking up the trade deal, saying China will provide the metals that are found in a wide range of electronics and vehicles "up front". But the deal does little to solve the underlying problem with rare earths, magnets and other refined metals such as lithium and cobalt, which are dominated by Chinese supply chains. At best, the agreement this week is a kick the can down the road type of deal, insofar as it prevents an immediate crisis in manufacturing in the United States, but leaves open the possibility that Beijing will once again threaten supplies if there are problems between the two sides in the future. China controls 85% of global rare earths refining, a situation that has hitherto largely benefited Western companies as they have been able to source the metals at prices far lower than what they would have had to pay had they tried to mine and process the elements by themselves. Rare earths are an example of the wider problem with so-called critical minerals. It's all very well to designate a mineral as critical, but if you don't actually do anything to secure a supply chain, then you really have to question just how critical the mineral is. Rare earths aren't really that rare, although finding economic deposits is challenging. It's the same for lithium, copper, cobalt, tungsten and a range of other metals that many governments designate as critical. But developing supply chains for these minerals and refined metals outside of China is costly, and so far Western countries and companies have been unwilling to commit funds. Companies won't develop new mines and processing plants if they have to compete with China at market prices, as very few projects would be economic. Governments have been sluggish in developing policies that would support new supply chains, such as guaranteeing offtake at prices high enough to justify investment, or by providing loans or other incentives. This means that the world remains beholden to China for these metals, and is likely to remain so until governments start to act rather than just talk. It's also worth noting that China will have learned from its latest talks with the Trump administration. As Trump himself may have put it, the United States doesn't hold all the cards, with Beijing having a few aces up its sleeve as well. The danger is always in overplaying one's hand. If Beijing keeps using rare earths as a trump card, it runs the risk that the West will cough up the cash to build its own supply chain. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
NBC News
17 minutes ago
- NBC News
Israel considering military strike on Iran, sources say
Israel is considering taking military action against Iran — most likely without U.S. support — in the coming days, even as President Donald Trump is in advanced discussions with Tehran about a diplomatic deal to curtail its nuclear program, according to five people with knowledge of the situation. Israel has become more serious about a unilateral strike on Iran as the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran appear closer to a preliminary or framework agreement that includes provisions about uranium enrichment that Israel views as unacceptable. A unilateral strike or action by Israel against Iran would be a dramatic break with the Trump administration, which has argued against such a step. The renewed threat of an Israeli strike comes as the Trump administration is awaiting a response from Iran on a proposed framework of a nuclear deal, and as the president has publicly said Tehran has become more hardline in its negotiations. The notion of a new front in a simmering conflict has prompted the Trump administration to order all embassies within striking distance of Iranian missiles, aircraft and other assets (including missions in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Eastern Europe) to send cables with assessments about danger and about measures to mitigate risks to Americans and U.S. infrastructure, according to two sources familiar. U.S. and other officials are on alert awaiting the possibility of Israel striking Iran, the officials said. The White House has not briefed senior lawmakers on the issue, according to that aide and a U.S. official. One major concern is Iran retaliating against U.S. personnel or assets in the region for any action. Israel, which relies on intelligence or other direct and logistical assistance from the U.S., may be in a position to take unilateral action against Tehran, the source familiar said. The sources familiar and officials were not aware of any planned U.S. involvement in the possible action. The U.S. could support with aerial re-fueling or intelligence sharing rather than kinetic support but the sources and officials were not aware of plans for that either at this point. U.S. officials have announced that the voluntary departure of non-essential employees from the region. And the Pentagon announced the voluntary departure of military families from locations all across the U.S. Central Command area of operations. CENTCOM Commander General Erik Kurilla was due to testify on the Hill on Thursday, but the hearing was postponed late Wednesday without explanation. A source familiar said Kurilla had to focus on this unfolding situation. Another possible factor: Iran is rebuilding its strategic air defenses, and manned strikes will soon be exponentially more dangerous for Israeli pilots. In October, Israel damaged nearly every one of Iran's strategic air defense systems (mainly S-300s) but much of the damage was to the radars or other parts that can be rebuilt. It's possible Israel's window for manned strikes, without being threatened by Iran's coordinated strategic air defenses, is closing. While Israel would most likely prefer U.S. military and intelligence support for strikes — especially against Iranian nuclear facilities — they showed in October that they can do a lot alone. Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the evacuation of non-essential staff at the U.S. embassy in Iraq will send a message to Tehran that Trump will not necessarily hold Israel back from launching a threatened attack on Iran. 'It's about trying to get Iran to respect the president's wishes,' Knights said. Iran has failed to meet a two-month deadline set by Trump to reach an agreement on the country's nuclear activities, and the president is frustrated, he said. Both Knights and a source with knowledge of the matter said it was unclear if Israel would undertake a limited military strike now or wait until nuclear negotiations played out further. Trump has expressed growing frustration over Iran's stance at recent indirect talks, portraying Tehran as inflexible and slow moving. 'They're just asking for things that you can't do. They don't want to give up what they have to give up,' Trump told reporters on Monday. 'They seek enrichment. We can't have enrichment.'
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Israel considering military action against Iran in days without US support
Israel is considering taking military action against Iran in the coming days - without American support, sources have told US media. The reports comes as US President Donald Trump is said to be in advanced discussions with Iran about a diplomatic deal to curtail the Middle Eastern country's nuclear programme. Israel is said to have become more serious about a unilateral strike on Iran as the negotiations between Washington and Tehran appear closer to a preliminary or framework agreement that includes provisions about uranium enrichment. Israel views those provisions as unacceptable. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government is therefore considering a strike on Iran, a Capitol Hill aide and other sources familiar with the matter have told Sky News' US partner network NBC News. An Israeli strike on Iran would be a dramatic break with the Trump administration which has argued against such a move. The prospect of a new front in the conflict in the Middle East has prompted the Trump administration to order all embassies within striking distance of Iranian missiles, aircraft and other assets, to send cables with assessments about the potential threat to Americans and US infrastructure, according to two sources familiar with the matter. The White House has not yet briefed senior politicians on the situation, according to a US official. The reports have emerged after the US State Department said it had ordered the evacuation of all non-essential personnel from its embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, due to the potential for regional unrest. It did not mention any possible attack by Israel on Iran when it announced the move. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: "The State Department regularly reviews American personnel abroad, and this decision was made as a result of a recent review." It comes as the US is also authorising the departure of non-essential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait - giving the staff a choice as to whether to leave those countries. An Iraqi government source told the country's state news agency that Baghdad has not recorded any security indication that calls for the evacuation. There was already limited staffing in the US embassy in Baghdad and the order will not affect a large number of personnel. Meanwhile, the military dependents in Bahrain and Kuwait will have the option of leaving those countries at government expense and with government assistance. Asked why the US personnel are being moved out of the Middle East, Mr Trump said on Wednesday evening: "They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we'll see what happens." When asked if there is anything that can be done to reduce tensions in the region, the US president said: "They can't have a nuclear weapon, very simple, they can't have a nuclear weapon, we're not going to allow that." US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is set to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in the Oman capital Muscat on Sunday to discuss the Iranian response to a recent US proposal, according to American news site Axios, which cited a US official. The US and Iran have been engaged in talks aimed at limiting Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions America has imposed on the country. Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful. Tehran and Washington tensions Mr Trump, who has previously said Israel or America could carry out airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations failed, has given a less-than-optimistic view about reaching a deal with Iran. He told the New York Post's "Pod Force One" podcast that he was "getting more and more less confident about" a deal. "They seem to be delaying, and I think that's a shame. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them," he said in the interview released on Wednesday. Iran's mission to the UN posted on the X social media platform that "threats of 'overwhelming force' won't change facts".
