Trump says US could hit Iran's nuclear sites again 'if necessary'
Trump issued the warning in a social media post on Monday evening after Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Fox News that Tehran cannot give up its nuclear enrichment programme, even though it was damaged in US bombings last month.
"It is stopped because, yes, damages are serious and severe. But obviously, we cannot give up on enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists. And now, more than that, it is a question of national pride," Araghchi said.
On his Truth Social platform, Trump referenced Araghchi's comments about the nuclear sites being severely damaged and said: "Of course they are, just like I said, and we will do it again, if necessary!"
The US strikes on 22 June hit three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — during Israel's 12-day conflict with Iran.
Days after a US-brokered ceasefire was announced, Trump claimed that Washington's strikes had "completely and fully obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites.
However, Trump's claim was called into question when a subsequent US intelligence report found that Iran's nuclear programme had only been set back a few months.
The White House firmly pushed back on the assessment, calling it "flat-out wrong".
Trump's social media post followed an announcement by Iran on Monday that it would hold renewed talks on Friday with European nations over its nuclear programme.
The meeting in Istanbul will be the first since the Israel-Iran ceasefire was reached late last month, and follows similar discussions in the Turkish city in May.
The talks will bring Iranian officials together with counterparts from the UK, France and Germany — known as the E3 nations — and the European Union's foreign policy chief.
"The topic of the talks is clear, lifting sanctions and issues related to the peaceful nuclear program of Iran," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Monday.
Under a 2015 deal designed to limit Iran's nuclear activities, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Tehran agreed to tough restrictions on its nuclear programme in exchange for an easing of international sanctions.
The deal began to unravel in 2018, when the US pulled out and started to reintroduce certain sanctions.
European nations have recently threatened to trigger the 2015 deal's "snapback" mechanism, which would allow sanctions to be reimposed in the case of non-compliance by Tehran.
Iran has gradually increased its nuclear activities, including enriching uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog.
Tehran denies allegations that it is seeking a nuclear weapon and has long said its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
21 minutes ago
- LeMonde
Macron's pledge to recognize State of Palestine sparks anger in Israel
Emmanuel Macron's commitment to recognize the State of Palestine in September, at the United Nations General Assembly, was met with anger in Israel. In a statement released just two hours after the French president's announcement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel "strongly condemns" the decision. "Such a move rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became," wrote Netanyahu. Israeli political leaders reacted in unison: Israel Katz, the country's defense minister, said he would not accept such a decision, claiming a Palestinian State "would harm our security, endanger our existence." Amir Ohana, speaker of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, said the French president "just awarded Hamas a prize for committing the October 7 massacre." He added, "I'm ashamed to have met this man. I love France. It deserves more courageous leadership." Israeli far-right political leaders, meanwhile, called for the country to retaliate to Macron's announcement by officially annexing the occupied West Bank. "I thank President Macron for providing yet another compelling reason to finally apply Israeli sovereignty over the historic regions of Judea and Samaria," wrote Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a Jewish supremacist, on the social media platform X. The day before, Wednesday, July 23, the Knesset passed a symbolic non-binding motion (71 votes to 13) that advocated the same notion of applying Israeli "sovereignty" over the occupied West Bank. Yariv Levin, Israel's justice minister, accused France of supporting terrorism and also called for the annexation of the Palestinian West Bank territory, 60% of which is already directly administered by Israel. In the United States, the Elysée's promise was deemed counterproductive by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. "This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace," said Rubio, adding: "It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7." On the other hand, in addition to Saudi Arabia and Jordan, both which congratulated Macron, Pedro Sanchez, the prime minister of Spain, a country that already recognizes the State of Palestine, hailed the French announcement, seeing it as a positive step toward a two-state solution.
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
Tens of thousands displaced amid Thailand and Cambodia border clashes
Tens of thousands of people have fled their homes as fighting between Thailand and Cambodia continued for a second day Friday. Over 58,000 people fled their homes from four affected Thai border provinces and sought refuge in temporary shelters, the Thai Health Ministry said on Friday. Meanwhile, in Cambodia, local authorities said more than 4,000 were evacuated from areas near the border. The two sides fired small arms, artillery and rockets at each other, which Thailand said killed one Thai soldier and 13 civilians and wounded at least 14 soldiers and 32 civilians. Cambodia reported its first death from the fighting on Friday. Thailand has also launched airstrikes at Cambodia, reportedly involving one of its six US-made F-16 fighter jets. Border tension between the two countries is not new, as the border dispute between the two countries started more than a century ago, following the end of France's occupation of Cambodia. However, renewed fighting erupted on Thursday following an incident in which five Thai soldiers were injured, including one who lost a leg, as a result of a landmine explosion. Thailand had blamed Cambodia for placing new mines along paths that, by mutual agreement, were supposed to be safe. Cambodia rejected the allegations, claiming the mines were remnants of old wars and unrest. Both the Thai Army and Cambodia's Defence Ministry accused each other of deploying drones before advancing on the other's positions and opening fire. The conflict then escalated with the use of heavier weapons, including artillery. Thailand deployed F16 fighter jets and launched airstrikes in retaliation for Cambodia's use of rockets, a move that Thai Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nikorndej Balankura had called an "act of self-defence". Balankura emphasised that the government was prepared to intensify its self-defence measures "if Cambodia persists in its armed aggression and violations (of) Thailand's sovereignty.' Cambodian Defence Ministry spokesperson Lt Gen Maly Socheata said his country deployed armed forces because 'it has no choice but to defend its territory against Thai threats" and insisted the "attacks were focused on the military places, not on any other place." The UN Security Council scheduled an emergency meeting in New York on Friday after Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Manet requested the council to do so to "stop Thailand's aggression". However, on Friday, Thailand rejected mediation efforts from third countries and instead urged Cambodia to engage in bilateral talks.
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
Europe's migration crisis isn't just about boats – it's about strategy
Europe's migration crisis is not just a humanitarian emergency or a border control problem. It's a strategic breakdown. From the English Channel to Lampedusa, irregular migration continues to dominate headlines and decide elections. The response thus far from many European capitals has been predictable: short-term containment measures, bilateral return agreements, and new offshore processing schemes. And yet the flow continues, unabated and undeterred. Criminal networks that traffic in human lives adapt. Public pressure rises. And the policies, in turn, grow more reactive. To treat migration as a standalone issue is to miss a much broader point. Irregular migration is a symptom — not the disease. The deeper problem lies in a fragmented European foreign policy, the erosion of state sovereignty in transit countries, and the pervasive influence of malign non-state actors in eastern Libya, led by the renegade General Haftar and his international backers — foremost among them Russia — who malevolently weaponise irregular migration to strong-arm European decision-makers on a range of critical issues, including the recognition of Haftar's secessionist regime based in Benghazi. Strategic blind spots Across North Africa and beyond, these forces have been quietly reshaping migration into an effective lever for political pressure. In Libya, for example, irregular migration has not only become a source of illicit income for criminal networks — but it is also a strategic tool used by the authorities in the Haftar-controlled east to exert influence, extract concessions, or disrupt the European agenda. These networks do not operate in isolation. They are often embedded in local structures and enjoy quiet backing from international players who see irregular migration as a bargaining chip — not a humanitarian concern. Their goal is not stability, but leverage. Equally concerning is the European tendency to engage with these actors in good faith — despite their open disdain for political, legal and diplomatic norms, as well as ethical standards. This spectacle played out in full last week when an EU delegation was abruptly expelled from eastern Libya for the apparent crime of adhering to established diplomatic protocol. Many of these Haftar-aligned groups have a lengthy rap sheet of human rights violations, autocratic behaviour, and disregard for international law. While cooperation with such actors may be tempting for European policymakers eager to secure quick wins on migration and border security that placate domestic audiences, these efforts often amount to little more than window dressing. The reason for this is clear: the Haftar-led regime and its loyalists lack any genuine commitment to democratic principles, human dignity, and legal accountability. Their willingness to violate human rights, cooperate in abuses, or pursue agendas that undermine regional stability makes them unreliable and dangerous partners. Their actions are difficult to predict, and their goals more than often run counter to those of their European counterparts. By engaging these forces sans preconditions or pressure, Europe risks further entrenching them — and turning the serious humanitarian crisis of migration into an exploitable political tool, increasingly used to blackmail and coerce European states and institutions. This is not just a policy failure. It is a strategic vulnerability. Unless Europe urgently reconsiders whom it empowers and on what terms, irregular migration will continue to escalate — not simply as a movement of people — but as a symptom of geopolitical exploitation and structural disorder. The result is chaos. Libya, like other transit states, bears the burden of this political ambiguity. Non-regulatory migration continues to grow, and with tragic human consequences. Smuggling routes expand inland while migrants and refugees are left vulnerable to extortion, violence, and exploitation. European engagement remains focused on border control and externalisation. Proposals like the Rwanda model reflect the desire to contain the issue offshore — to move people, not solve problems. But as we've seen time and again – such deals – however politically useful, rarely survive legal or logistical scrutiny. What is needed is a shift in mindset, from reaction to strategy, from containment to cooperation. Four-point reset If Europe is serious about addressing irregular migration, four changes are essential. Deterrence cannot work without alternatives. Safe pathways, such as those piloted through Safe Mobility Offices in Latin America, should be replicated in North Africa. These can divert irregular flows by offering legal entry for asylum, work, or family reunification. Europe must cease dealing with actors who profit from people smuggling and border disorder as security partners. A clean break from engaging with illegitimate authorities — such as those in eastern Libya — combined with sustained political and economic pressure on subversive parallel state structures, is key to safeguarding Libyan state sovereignty, which in turn is essential to restoring border security. Post-Brexit paralysis on migration must end. A UK-EU admissions agreement rooted in shared responsibility — not unilateral returns — would help rebuild cooperation and restore credibility in clear, legal migration pathways. Voluntary repatriation programs remain vastly underused and underfunded. Europe and the UK must align funding to support returns that are humane, supported by reintegration services, and tied to development incentives for countries of origin. A time for strategic clarity If Europe is to regain control of its migration policy, it must first regain clarity in its strategy. Irregular migration is not just a movement of people — it is a reflection of how Europe engages with the world, and how the world responds in turn. The solution lies not in building higher walls or signing risk-shifting deals, but in crafting partnerships based on accountability, long-term interests, and mutual respect. The time for fragmented fixes is over. What is needed now is a coordinated vision — one that sees migration not as a threat to contain, but as a reality to govern wisely and humanely. Walid Ellafi serves as Minister of Communication and Political Affairs in the Libyan Government of National Unity (GNU).
