Trump to decide US' Israel-Iran action in next two weeks
Citing a message from Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters: "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."
The Republican president has kept the world guessing on his plans, veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the U.S. might join the fighting on Israel's side. On Wednesday (local time), he said nobody knew what he would do. A day earlier he mused on social media about killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then demanded Iran's unconditional surrender.
The threats have caused cracks in Trump's support base between more hawkish traditional Republicans and the party's more isolationist elements.
But critics said that in the five months since returning to office, Trump has issued a range of deadlines - including to warring Russia and Ukraine and to other countries in trade tariff negotiations - only to suspend those deadlines or allow them to slide.
"I think going to war with Iran is a terrible idea, but no one believes this 'two weeks' bit," Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on the social media platform X. "He's used it a million times before to pretend he might be doing something he's not. It just makes America look weak and silly."
Leavitt told a regular briefing at the White House that Trump was interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran, but his top priority was ensuring that Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon.
She said any deal would have to prohibit enrichment of uranium by Tehran and eliminate Iran's ability to achieve a nuclear weapon.
"The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution ... if there's a chance for diplomacy, the president's always going to grab it," Leavitt said. "But he's not afraid to use strength as well I will add." BYPASSING CONGRESS?
Leavitt declined to say if Trump would seek congressional authorization for any strikes on Iran. Democrats have raised concerns over reports on CBS and other outlets that Trump has already approved a plan to attack Iran, bypassing Congress, which has the sole power to declare war.
Leavitt said U.S. officials remained convinced that Iran had never been closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, saying it would take Tehran just "a couple of weeks" to produce such a weapon.
Leavitt's assessment contradicted congressional testimony in March from Trump's intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard. She said then that the U.S. intelligence community continued to judge that Tehran was not working on a nuclear warhead.
This week, Trump dismissed Gabbard's March testimony, telling reporters: "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one."
On Wednesday, Trump lieutenant Steve Bannon urged caution about the U.S. joining Israel in trying to destroy Iran's nuclear program.
Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran on Thursday and Iran fired missiles and drones at Israel after hitting an Israeli hospital overnight, as a week-old air war escalated and neither side showed any sign of an exit strategy.
Leavitt said Trump had been briefed on the Israeli operation on Thursday and remained in close communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She said Iran was in "a deeply vulnerable position" and would face grave consequences if it did not agree to halt its work on a nuclear weapon.
Iran has been weighing wider options in responding to the biggest security challenge since its 1979 revolution.
Three diplomats told Reuters that Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi have spoken by phone several times since Israel began its strikes last week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
14 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
The billionaire says he wants a new political party, and many agree. Can he pull it off?
Lots of history, about Musk and about politics more broadly, would say, 'Elon, save your money'. Musk's claim that he wants to start a new party is the latest iteration of his recent feud with President Donald Trump. What triggered their falling out, in part, was Musk's attack on Trump's prime legislative initiative, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act'. He called it 'utterly insane and destructive'. Musk hated the bill because it would balloon the national debt by at least US$3 trillion. He said Congress should not pass it. Republicans ignored him and sent the measure to Trump for a July Fourth signing ceremony. So the scoreboard shows: Trump 1, Musk 0. Elon Musk, with his son X, with Trump and reporters in the Oval Office. Photo / The Washington Post Public opinion agrees with Musk about the need for a third major political party. Gallup has done an annual survey on this question since 2003. Only once – that first year – did a majority say that the Republican and Democratic parties were doing an adequate job representing the American people. Last October, 58% said the two parties 'do such a poor job' representing people that a third major party was needed. That was slightly lower than in 2023 but in line with a two-decade trend. For years, most self-identified independents have said a third major party is needed. Last year, it was 69%. Republicans and Democrats tend to be more optimistic about the two-party system when their party has the White House, but overall, they too generally say there is a need for another party. That independents solidly favour a third major party squares with another trend in politics, which is the rising percentage of Americans who label themselves as independents. Last year, 43% told Gallup they identified as independents, compared with 28% each for Democrats and Republicans. When pushed to say whether they lean towards one of the two parties, or when in the voting booth in recent elections in the country's deeply polarised environment, many of those independents quickly pick sides. Absent real options, they have no choice. Who wants to waste a vote? Would-be independent candidates have been searching for what they say is a sensible centre of the electorate for a long time. No one has found it. Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chief executive, is a recent example. He started a campaign for president in the 2020 cycle but quit months later. 'An independent campaign for the White House is not how I can best serve our country at this time,' Howard Schultz said after quitting the presidential bid in 2020. Photo / Getty Images Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg explored a third-party candidacy and eventually concluded there was no path to victory. In 2020, he ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination after spending about a billion dollars. Trump could have gone the independent route, given his money and celebrity status. He was smart enough to hijack the Republican Party. Not that there haven't been some independent candidates for president who got a good share of the vote. Ross Perot is the most recent example. In 1992, he captured 19% of the popular vote but not a single electoral vote. In 1968, Alabama Governor George C. Wallace won five Southern states but only about 14% of the popular vote. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, as a former president, carried six states and captured 27% of the vote running on the Bull Moose ticket. In splitting the Republican vote, he doomed incumbent William Howard Taft and helped to elect Democrat Woodrow Wilson. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party are well-established and have regularly run candidates for president, but they have scant support. At the state and local levels, those small parties have made minimal impact. What could make Musk's effort different from past attempts? The obvious answer is money. He's the world's richest person, with a net worth variously estimated near or above US$400 billion. He spent more than US$250 million helping Trump get elected last year. But just how much is Musk willing to invest to build a party capable of running serious elections up and down the ballot? Kamala Harris, in her 107-day campaign for president, spent north of a billion dollars. How many billions would Musk need to spend to create a party with viability and durability? Kamala Harris spent a billion dollars during her US presidential campaign, raising the question of how much Musk is willing to invest in creating a third party. Photo / Getty Images This isn't a one-time investment. Party-building is a day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out proposition. Perot thought it was possible to create a party, as did many of those who voted for him. They tried after his campaign in 1992 and made serious efforts after his 1996 campaign. Their efforts came to naught as the Perot movement splintered over personality differences and lack of consensus on an agenda. Musk faces important questions as he thinks about creating a new party. One is what the party stands for. Is it all about deficits and debt? A recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll about the new legislation found that 63% of Americans said it was unacceptable to add another US$3t to a national debt that already is US$36t. So that suggests one area upon which to build. But when the Pew Research Centre asked people to rank issues in order of priority at the beginning of the 2024 election year, deficits sat squarely in the middle, after the economy, immigration, healthcare costs and – take note, Mr Musk – reducing the influence of money in politics. So would people vote for a candidate for the House or Senate whose principal, or even sole, issue is dealing with the debt, which would entail tackling the issues of Social Security and Medicare? And is that enough of a foundation for a new party to attract enough people to win elections? Musk has suggested his goal is to target some vulnerable representatives or senators in 2026 to produce a small cadre of lawmakers who would constitute the swing vote in either chamber. To do that, he could flood a few races with money – though he would have to channel it through a super PAC, given the limits on individual contributions to candidates. 'Money is important, but it's not everything.' Can he break US political dominance? Photo / Getty Images Money is important, but it's not everything. A major challenge would be finding quality candidates willing to join Musk in his undertaking. How would he build the infrastructure needed to identify, recruit and arm the people capable of running effective challenges to the existing parties? Another obstacle is gaining access to ballots. If his goal is to create a national party, that's a cumbersome process. Each state has different rules, so it would take a small army of lawyers and paid petition gatherers. That is not impossible but potentially difficult to do in time for next year's midterm elections. It would be easier, if Musk's real goal is to capture a relatively small number of House or Senate seats, to run candidates as independents. There's another problem for Musk. He's an imperfect symbol for a new party, given how unpopular he has become since he decided to get into the political arena. Not only is he unpopular, so is the tech industry, according to a new poll conducted for the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. The poll asked people how much they trusted various entities 'to act in the best interests of the California public'. Of nine listed, tech companies and their leaders came in last, with 79% saying 'a little' or 'not at all'. When there was talk that he might seek the presidency in 1996, former secretary of state Colin Powell was asked whether it would be easier to run as an independent or as the nominee of a third party. He responded, 'It depends on the nature of this third party. Does it have structure [and] funding? Does it bring something to a candidacy?' Those are questions Musk and those around him will need to answer before he moves forward. In time, it will become clear whether this is something serious or merely frivolous.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
We Condemn U.S. Government's Latest Sanctions On The President Of Cuba And Other State Officials
The Hugo Chavez International Foundation for Peace, Friendship and Solidarity (HCIF-PFS) notes the US government's baseless sanctions on Cuba and foreign government officials who refuse to become subservient to imperialism. In its latest in a series of unending escalatory attacks aiming to destabilise Cuba, the Trump's administration in Washington announced on Friday, 11th July, 2025 sanctions against Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel, as well as the country's Defence and Interior Ministers. Washington claimed it action was in response to what it said, for the deadly crackdown on protests in 2021. These baseless and unilateral sanctions that shift blame and scapegoat Cuba on the basis of spurious allegations, must be viewed here as a stain on humanity's collective conscience, and they violate United Nations Charter and principles of international law. They constitute also flagrant breach of the sovereignty, independence and freedom of peoples and nations. Such threats and coercive measures are an attempt to silence growing international criticism and scrutiny of US genocidal policies against the Palestinian people. The Trump administration is now scapegoating Cuba to save its face in the civilized international community, which has denounced US hypocrisy and double standards in the practice of human rights. This tactic will not work, and Cuba will not be silenced. The sane world will not stop speaking out against the US government's complicity in the ongoing genocide campaign and crimes against humanity in Palestine. In our view, this latest attacks on Cuba are only a violation of the rights that US claims to uphold. The illicit and immoral sanctions are meant to obstruct the peace, stability and development of Cuba, since the 62-year criminal blockade has failed to achieve its original goal of destabilizing the 1st January, 1959 revolution, led by the all-time revolutionary icon, Fidel Castro (May peace be unto him). The Hugo Chavez International Foundation for Peace, Friendship and Solidarity, through this public statement deplores, in letter and spirit, these illicit, unilateral and baseless sanctions, and urges the US to rather, direct sanctions on the Israeli leadership for the heinous crimes and crime against humanity unleashed in Palestine. We support Cuba's government ongoing efforts, in working with like-minded international partners to seek an end to US blockade. Concluding, we call on the civilized international community, especially Cuba's allies who share the same fundamental universal values and principles of freedom, friendship and solidarity, to redouble their efforts and unite in defending truth against injustice, and standing up to US imperialism.
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Europe: Srebrencia remembered, UK-France migrant deal examined
politics world 36 minutes ago Foreign correspondent Seamus Kearney talks about commemorations in Bosnia-Herzegovina to mark 30 years since the Srebrenica massacre, the worst atrocity in Europe since WWII. The European Commission is seeking more information about a controversial migrant deal struck between the UK and France. And EU officials have been taken by surprise over US President Trump's threat to impose 30% tariffs on EU goods.
