Latest news with #diplomaticresolution
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Did Trump approve Israel's attack on Iran, and is the US preparing for war?
As the conflict between Iran and Israel escalates, United States President Donald Trump's administration is offering mixed signals about whether it still backs a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear programme. Publicly, it has backed a negotiated agreement, and US and Iranian negotiators had planned to meet again this week. As recently as Thursday, Trump insisted in a Truth Social post: 'We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution.' But 14 hours later as Israel began its attacks on Iran, Trump posted that he had given Iran a 60-day deadline to reach an agreement – and that the deadline had passed. By Sunday, Trump was insisting that 'Israel and Iran should make a deal' and they would with his help. On Monday as Trump prepared to leave the Group of Seven summit in Canada early, his warnings grew more ominous: He posted that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and 'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' The US president later denied speculation that he had returned to Washington, DC, early to negotiate a ceasefire, noting that it was for something 'much bigger than that'. Trump's ambiguous statements have fuelled debate among analysts about the true extent of US involvement and intentions in the Israel-Iran conflict. Trump has denied any US involvement in the strikes. 'The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight,' he wrote on Sunday. Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the US-based Arms Control Association, said Trump's messaging had been clear. 'I think that President Trump has been very clear in his opposition to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was playing out. And reporting suggests that he pushed back against [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,' she said. What's more likely, Davenport said, is that 'Israel was worried that diplomacy would succeed, that it would mean a deal' and 'that it did not view [this as] matching its interests and objectives regarding Iran'. Richard Nephew, a professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, agreed, saying it was Trump's consistent march towards a deal that troubled Israel. 'I think it is that consistency that's actually been the thing that's the problem,' said Nephew, who served as director for Iran at the US National Security Council from 2011 to 2013 under then-President Barack Obama. But Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at St Andrews University in Scotland, disagreed. 'The US was aware. … Even if the specific timing did surprise them, they must have been aware, so a wink is about right,' he told Al Jazeera. 'At the same time, the US view is that Israel must take the lead and should really do this on their own,' he said. Israel is believed to have destroyed the above-ground section of Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. The facility has enriched uranium to 60 percent purity – far above the 3.67 percent needed for nuclear power but below the 90 percent purity needed for an atomic bomb. Power loss at Natanz as a result of the Israeli strike may have also damaged the underground enrichment section at Natanz, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But in the IAEA's assessment, Israel did not damage Iran's other uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain and also enriches uranium to 60 percent purity. 'It's likely that Israel would need US support if it actually wanted to penetrate some of these underground facilities,' Davenport said, pointing to the largest US conventional bomb, the 13,600kg (30,000lb) Massive Ordnance Penetrator. '[With] repeated strikes with that munition, you could likely damage or destroy some of these facilities,' Davenport said, noting that Washington 'has not transferred that bomb to Israel'. Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a US-based think tank, also told Al Jazeera that Israel would need US weapons to complete its stated mission of destroying Iran's nuclear programme. Nephew, for one, did not discount the chances of that happening. 'We know that [Trump] likes to be on the side of winners. To the extent that he perceives the Israelis as winners right now, that is the reason why he is maintaining his position and why I think we have a wink [to Israel],' he said. On Friday, the US flew a large number of midair-refuelling planes to the Middle East and ordered the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz to sail there. On Tuesday, it announced it was sending more warplanes to the region. Ansari agreed that the initial success of Israel's attacks could mean that 'Trump is tempted to join in just to get some of the glory,' but he thinks this could force Iran to stand down. 'It may well be that the US does join in on an attack on Fordow although I think even the genuine threat of an American attack will bring the Iranians to the table,' Ansari said. 'They can concede – with honour – to the United States; they can't to Israel, though they may have no choice.' Wary of American involvement, US Senator Tim Kaine introduced a war powers resolution on Monday that would require the US Congress to authorise any military action against Iran. 'It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States,' Kaine said. Obama did not believe a military solution was attractive or feasible for Iran's nuclear programme, and he opted for a diplomatic process that resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. That agreement called for the IAEA to monitor all of Iran's nuclear activities to ensure that uranium enrichment only reached the levels required for energy production. According to Nephew and Davenport, Trump indirectly fanned the flames of the military option when he pulled the US out of the JCPOA as president in 2018 at Israel's behest. Two years later, Iran said it would enrich uranium to 4.5 percent purity, and in 2021, it refined it to 20 percent purity. In 2023, the IAEA said it had found uranium particles at Fordow enriched to 83.7 percent purity. Trump offered no alternative to the JCPOA during his first presidential term, nor did President Joe Biden after him. 'Setting [the JCPOA] on fire was a direct contribution to where we are today,' Nephew said. Seeking a military path instead of a diplomatic one to curtail a nuclear programme 'contributes to a proliferation path', he said, 'because countries say, 'The only way I can protect myself is if I go down this path.'' Davenport, an expert on the nuclear and missile programmes of Iran and North Korea, said even the regime change in Tehran that Netanyahu has called for wouldn't solve the problem. 'Regime change is not an assured nonproliferation strategy,' she said. 'We don't know what would come next in Iran if this regime were to fall. If it were the military seizing control, nuclear weapons might be more likely. But even if it were a more open democratic government, democracies choose to build nuclear weapons too.'
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
India, Pakistan Signal Intent to Ease Tensions After Strikes
(Bloomberg) -- India and Pakistan signaled they are willing to de-escalate after strikes on military bases by both sides on Saturday raised fears of all-out war between the nuclear-armed nations and prompted warnings from the US and China. As Trump Reshapes Housing Policy, Renters Face Rollback of Rights Is Trump's Plan to Reopen the Notorious Alcatraz Prison Realistic? What's Behind the Rise in Serious Injuries on New York City's Streets? NYC Warns of 17% Drop in Foreign Tourists Due to Trump Policies Vail to Borrow Muni Debt to Ease Ski Resort Town Housing Crunch 'If India stops, we will stop,' Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar said in an interview with Samaa TV, just hours after the army announced it had struck several Indian military sites in retaliation for New Delhi's missile attacks on Pakistani airbases. At a briefing in New Delhi, Indian officials said any future action would depend on Pakistan's next steps. 'Indian Armed Forces reiterate commitment to non-escalation provided it is reciprocated by Pakistani military,' said Wing Commander Vyomika Singh. The briefing primarily focused on how India repelled Pakistan's military attacks earlier in the day. The armed standoff, now in its fourth day, is at its most dangerous level in years, with both sides firing missiles and deploying drones over key military sites and densely populated cities. The US, China and Saudi Arabia are among those rushing to find a diplomatic solution. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a rare call with Pakistan army chief Asim Munir, and a separate one with Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar in a bid to de-escalate tensions. Rubio 'continued to urge both parties to find ways to de-escalate and offered U.S. assistance in starting constructive talks in order to avoid future conflict,' spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement. While tensions between the two South Asian rivals remain high, there was a slight change in tone after the military strikes on Saturday. Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, speaking on Geo Television on Saturday, denied local media reports claiming Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had called a meeting of the National Command Authority, the body responsible for decisions on nuclear weapons. 'We hope India will now choose dialog over escalation,' Ahsan Iqbal, Pakistan's planning minister, said in a statement posted on the ministry's X account. He added Pakistan doesn't wish to see the no-first-use nuclear doctrine unravel. Even so, Pakistan's army wields significant control in the country and a decision to de-escalate will likely rest with the powerful army chief. Early Saturday, the army said it began a counter-attack after Indian jets struck three of Pakistan's airbases with missiles, including Noor Airbase in Rawalpindi, which holds the army's headquarters and is located close to the capital Islamabad. The army said it retaliated by hitting Indian airbases and other military sites in Punjab state and the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir region. At the briefing in New Delhi on Saturday, officials denied Pakistan's claims that Indian airbases were destroyed. India's army said it carried out 'precision attacks' on military targets in Pakistan, including Sialkot airbase, but didn't name the military site in Rawalpindi. Vikram Misri, India's foreign secretary, blamed Pakistan for escalating the conflict by targeting civilian sites in cities like Srinagar, the capital of India's Jammu and Kashmir region, and Rajouri. He said Pakistan had targeted a medical center, school and airbases in Srinagar, Awantipora and Udhampur. Pakistan denied hitting any civilian sites. Pakistan closed its airspace for all flights until noon Sunday. India also announced the closure of 32 airports in the northern and western parts of the country, and suspended 25 air route segments, until May 15. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was 'deeply concerned about the escalation' in hostilities and called on both sides to 'refrain from any action' that could further heighten tensions. Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Faisal Bin Farhan held calls with his counterparts in India and Pakistan, also calling for a de-escalation of the conflict. Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven said in a statement that further military escalation poses a 'serious threat' to regional stability and both countries should engage in 'direct dialog towards a peaceful outcome.' Tensions between the countries erupted on April 22, when gunmen killed 26 civilians in India's Jammu and Kashmir region, mainly Hindu tourists. India called the attack an act of terrorism and accused Pakistan of involvement, allegations Islamabad has denied. This week, the situation escalated dramatically when India carried out a operation against what it described as terrorist camps inside Pakistan. The strikes on nine targets, which Pakistan's army said killed 31 civilians, were the deepest breach of Pakistani territory by India since the 1971 war. The conflict has roiled financial markets in both nations. India's NSE Nifty 50 index dropped more than 1% on Friday, the most in a month. After plunging on Thursday, Pakistan stocks rose on Friday before the International Monetary Fund approved a $1 billion loan disbursement. Pakistan and India have clashed several times over the disputed region of Kashmir since independence from Britain in 1947. The last time the two nations came close to an all-out war was in 2019, after a suicide bomber killed 40 members of India's security forces. India blamed Pakistan and responded about two weeks later with its first airstrikes on Pakistani soil since 1971. Pakistan retaliated by shooting down an Indian jet and arresting the pilot, who was later released. Tensions died down soon afterward. --With assistance from Chiranjivi Chakraborty. (Updates with comments from Saudi Arabia) How the Lizard King Built a Reptile Empire Selling $50,000 Geckos US Border Towns Are Being Ravaged by Canada's Furious Boycott Maybe AI Slop Is Killing the Internet, After All With the New York Liberty, Clara Wu Tsai Aims for the First $1 Billion Women's Sports Franchise Pre-Tariff Car Buying Frenzy Leaves Americans With a Big Debt Problem ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
