Trump Warns Iran of Another U.S. Strike if Nuclear Program Is Rebuilt - Jordan News
Trump Warns Iran of Another U.S. Strike if Nuclear Program Is Rebuilt In a press conference held in The Hague alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to Iran, declaring that any attempt to rebuild its nuclear program would be met with another American military strike. اضافة اعلان 'If the Iranians rebuild, there will absolutely be another U.S. strike,' Trump said. 'But I'm not worried about that. It's over for many years.' Trump emphasized the scale of destruction inflicted by the recent airstrikes, claiming that entire nuclear facilities were buried under millions of tons of rock, rendering them inaccessible. 'You can't even enter the room anymore,' he added. 'The bombs hit exactly where we wanted. With 30,000-pound warheads and the destructive power they bring, we achieved total devastation under the Fordow facility.' Trump described the mission as 'flawless' and 'perfect,' asserting that the bombs struck with precision and accomplished their intended outcome. Claims of Long-Term Setback to Iran's Program When asked about the impact of the strike on Iran's nuclear ambitions, Trump claimed the attack would delay Iran's program by decades: 'I don't think they'll try again. I think they're done. They've been through hell. Now they'll stick to oil, some missiles, and defense.' He argued that uranium enrichment is 'very hard' and rebuilding nuclear infrastructure is costly and complex: 'They spent trillions of dollars trying to build this program. And now it's gone.' A Controversial Comparison Trump controversially compared the U.S. strike on Iran to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suggesting the recent operation ended the conflict between Iran and Israel: 'This strike ended the war between Iran and Israel, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II.' He also claimed that the current ceasefire between Iran and Israel is holding well and that U.S.-Iran relations are now surprisingly positive. Contradicting Intelligence Reports Trump's remarks come amid conflicting assessments. As reported earlier, U.S. defense intelligence officials have indicated that the strike did not destroy key components of Iran's nuclear program and likely delayed it by only a few months. Nonetheless, Trump insisted the mission was a decisive success and implied that Iran no longer poses a nuclear threat, underscoring once again that American power remains the ultimate deterrent. This rhetoric will likely stir further debate within the U.S. and among allies, especially as independent assessments continue to evaluate the true impact of the strike and Iran's next moves remain uncertain.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Jordan News
7 minutes ago
- Jordan News
How Did the U.S. National Debt Reach Over $36 Trillion? - Jordan News
A billboard in Washington displays the current U.S. national debt at $36 trillion. The U.S. federal government continues to accumulate record levels of debt year after year, amid growing concerns over long-term fiscal sustainability. As of May, the total amount the United States owes to lenders stands at $36.2 trillion—an amount nearing historical highs when compared to the size of the nation's economy, a key metric in evaluating the government's ability to meet its financial obligations. اضافة اعلان Issues surrounding debt and the annual deficit have dominated much of the political discourse around President Donald Trump's proposed 'Big and Beautiful Law,' backed by Republicans. The proposal includes sweeping changes to tax and immigration policies, and the GOP is aiming to pass it through Congress before the Fourth of July. According to nonpartisan estimates reported by The Washington Post, this legislation could add nearly $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade when factoring in both direct costs and associated interest. Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant announced on Wednesday an extension of emergency cash management measures to prevent breaching the federal debt ceiling, pushing the deadline by nearly a month to July 24. This continuous cycle of debt accumulation, political wrangling over tax legislation, and extraordinary fiscal maneuvers by the Treasury reflects the complexity of the challenges facing the U.S. in managing the sustainability of its national debt. But how does this mounting debt affect the U.S. economy and the government's performance? 1. What Is the National Debt? As of now, the U.S. national debt totals $36.2 trillion, with the Treasury updating this figure down to the last cent daily. Debt levels remained relatively stable until the early 2000s but began rising sharply after President George W. Bush enacted tax cuts in 2001. Months later, the U.S. faced the 9/11 attacks and entered prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, largely financed through deficit spending. Subsequent domestic policies also increased the debt, including economic stimulus programs following the 2008 global financial crisis and the extension of Bush-era tax cuts. President Trump's massive 2017 tax cut package, followed by enormous federal spending during the COVID-19 pandemic under both Trump and President Joe Biden, caused sharp jumps in government spending—most of it funded through borrowing. 2. How Is the National Debt Measured? Policymakers often evaluate debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the total annual economic output of the country. A strong and growing GDP indicates the government's capacity to repay debt and borrow more when needed. However, a rising debt-to-GDP ratio may signal future difficulty in repaying debt. Economists are concerned about the uncertainty of when this point may be reached. Most countries cannot sustain the debt levels that the U.S. currently manages. Because much of the global economy depends on the dollar, the U.S. enjoys greater borrowing flexibility. But if lenders lose confidence in the U.S. government's repayment ability, they may hesitate to extend further credit—potentially triggering serious global economic consequences. The previous peak in the debt-to-GDP ratio was after World War II, during a period of rapid economic expansion. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the U.S. is projected to surpass that record by 2027. 3. What Makes Up the National Debt? Federal spending falls into two categories: discretionary and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending includes funding for federal agencies such as the Departments of Defense, Education, Homeland Security, and Health Services. It must be approved annually by Congress and signed by the president. Mandatory spending includes programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' healthcare. 4. What Is Mandatory Spending? Mandatory spending constitutes the largest share of the annual federal budget. It supports millions of Americans through programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and anti-poverty initiatives such as SNAP (formerly known as food stamps). Due to its essential role in citizens' lives, efforts to reduce the deficit often prove politically unpopular, as they frequently target critical social safety nets. 5. How Has the Debt Grown—or Shrunk? The $36.2 trillion national debt reflects the accumulation of annual deficits—the gap between government revenue (taxes and fees) and spending. For much of the 20th and 21st centuries, the U.S. has run annual deficits. Economists argue this is not inherently bad, as borrowing enables governments to invest in growth and distribute the cost of major programs over time, much like taking out a mortgage or a business loan. 6. How Have Democratic and Republican Presidents Handled the Debt? Annual deficits accumulate over time, and debt reduction has rarely been a top policy priority. The last time the U.S. government collected more revenue than it spent was between 1998 and 2001, when President Bill Clinton and a Republican-led Congress enacted social welfare reforms. From that time until 2024, Democrats and Republicans each governed for about the same number of years. During that period, Republicans increased the debt by $7.6 trillion, while Democrats added around $15 trillion. 7. Who Lends Money to the U.S.? There are two types of national debt: public debt and intragovernmental debt. Public debt refers to the money borrowed from individuals and institutions that purchase government bonds. Intragovernmental debt involves borrowing by the Treasury from funds like Social Security, which must be repaid with interest. 8. Which Countries Hold U.S. Debt? Economists primarily focus on the publicly held debt, as it's the main source for financing deficits. Foreign governments, companies, and individuals can also purchase U.S. debt, which offers several benefits. First, the U.S. is the world's largest economy with a strong history of repaying its obligations, making Treasury bonds a reliable investment—even though credit rating agency Moody's downgraded the U.S. government's rating last month. Second, when countries trade with the U.S., they receive payment in dollars. Instead of converting these to other currencies, it's often easier for central banks to reinvest them into U.S. Treasury securities. Third, holding U.S. debt serves diplomatic purposes. The U.S. has an interest in maintaining strong ties with its creditors, and buying Treasury bonds helps reinforce those relationships. 9. How Does Some Debt Lead to More Debt? As national debt increases, the U.S. must pay more to maintain its borrowing ability, which happens in two ways: Higher Interest Payments: For example, 2% interest on $100 equals $2, but on $1,000, it equals $20. Rising Interest Rates: As debt grows, investors demand higher yields, driving up interest rates. A 2% rate in 2013 has risen above 4% today to attract lenders. Global economic trends also heavily influence interest rate shifts. 10. What Are the Consequences of Rising National Debt? As debt increases, interest payments consume a larger share of the federal budget, reducing funds available for other priorities. In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. government spent more on servicing the debt than it did on the Department of Defense—or even the combined costs of Veterans Affairs, Education, refundable tax credits, and anti-poverty programs. As interest obligations rise, fewer financial resources remain for critical public investments. —(Agencies)
Ammon
an hour ago
- Ammon
Trump's Army?
Ammon News - By: Timothy Snyder TORONTO — It is a truism that authoritarian regimes stand or fall on the loyalty of the security forces, and US President Donald Trump has left little to chance since returning to the White House. His defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, immediately purged a half-dozen top generals, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in early May ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four-star generals and a 10% cut in lower-ranking generals. But it was a speech to troops a month later, at a base named after a Confederate general, that revealed most clearly Trump's conception of national security and the role of the armed forces in ensuring it. He made no mention of the world today, addressed no common American interest that might necessitate national defense, and expressed no concern about threats from China or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And whereas US presidents typically speak of individual heroism as evidence of a country worthy of defending, Trump said nothing about cherished Constitutional rights such as freedom of expression and assembly, and not a word about democracy. America did not exist in Trump's speech. Instead, Trump used US military history to advance a cult to himself. Great battlefield achievements became deeds performed for the pleasure of a leader who then invokes them to justify his own permanent power. Military glory becomes a spectacle into which the leader can inject any meaning. That is the fascist principle that Trump understands. All politics is struggle, and he who can define the enemy can stay in power. But whereas historical fascists had an enemy without and an enemy within, Trump only has an enemy within. That is why, immediately after joining Israel's attacks on Iran, he hastily declared victory – and a cease-fire. The world is too much for him. The army is just for dominating Americans. The enemy was identified in Trump's comparison of Americans seizing undocumented migrants in 2025 with the courage previous generations demonstrated fighting in the Revolutionary War, the two world wars, Korea, or Vietnam. Charging a trench or jumping from a plane is of course very different from ganging up on a graduate student or bullying a middle-aged seamstress. But here we see Trump's purpose: preparing American soldiers to view themselves as heroes when they participate in domestic operations against unarmed people, including US citizens. In his speech, Trump portrayed himself as more than a president. He repeatedly mocked his predecessor ('You think this crowd would have showed up for Biden?'), summoning soldiers to defy the fundamental idea that their service is to the Constitution, not to a person. Such unprecedented personalization of the presidency suggests that Trump's authority rests on something besides an election, something like individual charisma, or even divine right. Soldiers should follow Trump because he is Trump. Most Americans imagine that the US Army is here to defend us, not to attack us. But Trump used the occasion to goad soldiers into heckling their fellow Americans, to join him in taunting journalists, a critical check on tyranny who, like protesters, are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Trump was teaching soldiers that society does not matter, and that law does not matter. Only he matters, and he 'loves' soldiers so much, 'We're giving you an across-the-board raise.' This is the way a dictator speaks to a palace guard or a paramilitary. We are witnessing an attempt at regime change, rife with perversities. It has a historical component: We are to celebrate the Confederate traitors like Robert E. Lee, who rebelled against the US in defense of slavery. It has a fascist component: We are to embrace the present moment as an exception, in which all things are permitted to the leader. And of course it has an institutional component: Soldiers are meant to be the avant-garde of democracy's demise, whose job is to oppress the leader's chosen enemies – inside the US. Describing migration as an 'invasion,' as Trump did in his speech, is meant to blur the distinction between his administration's immigration policy and a foreign war. But it is also meant to transform the mission of the US Army. If soldiers and others are willing to believe that migration is an 'invasion,' they will see those who disagree as enemies. And this is exactly what Trump sought to achieve when he portrayed elected officials in California as collaborators in 'an occupation…by criminal invaders.' The US military, like other American institutions, includes people of various backgrounds. It depends heavily on African-Americans and non-citizens. Trying to transform it into a cult of the Confederacy and a tool to persecute migrants would cause great friction and gravely damage its reputation, especially if US soldiers kill US civilians. (There is also the risk that provocateurs, including foreign ones, try to kill a US soldier.) Trump would welcome and exploit such situations. He wants to turn everything around. He wants an army that is a personal paramilitary. He wants the shame of our national history to become our pride. He wants to transform a republic into a fascist regime in which his will is law. But what do US soldiers want? Trump's speech was a highly curated affair, with audience members selected on the basis of their political views and physical appearance. Four days later, however, the military parade Trump staged in Washington – honoring the Army's 250th anniversary and his own birthday – was widely described as a 'flop,' in which some 6,600 soldiers in combat fatigues walked, not marched, past a sparse crowd. As spectacles of military glory go, Pyongyang or Red Square it was not. I wasn't there. Like at least four million other people in the US that day, I was at one of the anti-Trump 'No Kings' rallies held in some 2,100 cities and towns across the country. It was the largest single-day political protest in US history, dwarfing attendance at Trump's parade and proving that a democracy exists only if a people exists, and a people exists only in individuals' awareness of one another and of their need to act together. This awareness is Trump's worst enemy. Timothy Snyder, the author or editor of 20 books, holds the inaugural Chair in Modern European History at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto and is a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna.
Ammon
an hour ago
- Ammon
The United States at crossroads: Between proactive renewal and historic decline
In April 2024, the American RAND Corporation published an extensive analytical report titled "Sources of Renewable National Dynamics." The researchers addressed the structural challenges facing the United States, warning of the risks of decline and loss of global standing if proactive national renewal is not undertaken. This report represents a significant shift in the approach of American think tanks to the issue of the rise and decline of major powers, not only in terms of implicit recognition of the decline phase, but also in presenting a historical and forward-looking model for studying how to restore effective national power. The report reflects growing concern in American decision-making circles that the United States' competitiveness is no longer guaranteed considering domestic and international changes. The report is based on the premise that the rise and fall of major powers is not a historical exception, but rather part of recurring cycles subject to multiple factors, most importantly structural adaptation and the ability to renew during moments of transition. Considering this hypothesis, the RAND team reviewed a number of historical experiences in which great powers experienced relative decline before succeeding—or failing—in regaining the initiative. These experiences include Britain in the Victorian era, the United States during the Progressive Era in the late nineteenth century, the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and China during its transitional periods. The study sought to draw general lessons from these experiences that would help understand the potential for American national renewal before it is too late. The report argues that the proactive renewal of any great power cannot occur without a minimum of subjective and objective conditions, including internal social consensus, flexible political institutions, a productive and innovative private sector, and the state's ability to utilize its resources strategically. It also notes that successful renewal requires a clear recognition of the crisis, not merely cosmetic or defensive rhetoric, as denial often leads to further decline. In this context, the report calls for the need to overcome the sharp partisan divisions in the United States, which it views as a real obstacle to any radical reform. In a systematic approach, the report identified nine key indicators deemed essential for measuring a state's ability to launch a proactive national renewal process. These indicators are: Sustainable resilience: This refers to a society's ability to adapt to crises and transformations without losing its cohesion or dynamism. Sovereign capacity: This is the state's ability to preserve the well-being of its people while ensuring protection from external threats. Freedom of international decision-making: This refers to a state's ability to act externally in accordance with its own interests, without dependence on other powers or coercive alliances. Military power: This refers to the possession of deterrence tools and operational superiority in various arenas of conventional and unconventional conflict. Alliances: The extent to which a state can build a cohesive and effective network of allies based on shared interests, rather than dependence or extortion. Economic power: This refers to the ability to influence the global economy through GDP, production, exports, and the ability to innovate. Market dominance: This refers to control over global market mechanisms, especially in vital sectors such as technology, energy, and finance. Cultural power: This refers to the ability to influence global thought patterns and values through the media, education, and the arts. Technological supremacy: This refers to leadership in technological innovation, including artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and cybersecurity. The report indicates that the United States, despite the challenges, still retains some of the strength needed to rebuild its global position, but it urgently needs a radical review of its economic, social, and educational policies. It also emphasizes that the time available for this transformation is narrowing, and that delaying the launch of the reform process could lead to irreversible consequences, especially in light of the rapid progress achieved by other powers, such as China, in the areas of trade, technology, and geopolitics. The report does not deny the United States' vast resources, but warns that the lack of internal consensus, the escalation of partisan divisions, and the erosion of trust in institutions could empty these resources of their substance and render them unable to fulfill their role in revitalizing the nation. It also indicates that the greatest challenge lies not only in regaining military or economic supremacy, but in renewing a national vision that unites Americans around a common goal and reshapes the relationship between state and society based on justice, efficiency, and innovation. While the report acknowledges that successful cases of proactive renewal are rare in history, it insists that the United States still has a chance to achieve this if it takes serious, thoughtful, and courageous steps. It also emphasizes that renewal is not merely a response to external decline, but rather a voluntary act that requires collective awareness and leadership capable of addressing the public with a language of frankness and responsibility, not one of reassurance and condescension. In this sense, the report is not merely an analytical document, but rather an early call for the need to preempt decline with comprehensive reform initiatives stemming from within and drawing on America's historical legacy of overcoming crises. This warning—issued by one of the most important American research institutions—may be an indication of a shift in the ruling elite's awareness of the magnitude of the challenges facing their country, and a belated realization that progress is only sustainable for those who dare to review and renew. Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
