Trump lambasts Khamenei, says he'd bomb Iran if nuclear activities restart
President Donald Trump has hit out at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's claim that Iran won its recent 12-day war with Israel, also saying the United States will 'absolutely' bomb the country again if it pursues nuclear weapons.
The US president launched a torrent of abuse at Iran's Supreme Leader on his Truth Social platform on Friday, claiming he had saved Khamenei from 'A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH' and accusing him of 'blatantly and foolishly' lying when he claimed 'victory' in the war the previous day.
In his first sortie since the Israel-Iran war ended with a ceasefire earlier this week, Khamenei had also said Iran 'slapped America in the face' by launching missiles at a major US base in Qatar following US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz.
In Friday's post, Trump said he had demanded Israel pull back from 'the final knockout'.
'His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life,' he said.
The question of whether US attacks destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities is moot – a leaked intelligence report contradicted Trump's account of events, suggesting the military's strikes had set the country back by mere months.
The US president said that Khamenei's comments, which he described as 'a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust', had led him to drop work on 'the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery'.
Future of nuclear programme
Trump's rant against Khamenei came on the back of bellicose comments earlier that day at a White House news conference. Asked whether he would consider new air strikes if the recent attacks had not succeeded in ending Iran's nuclear weapons programme, Trump said, 'Sure, without question, absolutely.'
He said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites.
But Iran has approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, a move widely seen as a direct response to the strikes.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated on Friday that Tehran may reject any request by the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites.
'[IAEA Director General] Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,' Araghchi said on X. 'Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.'
Grossi said on Wednesday that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority, as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on June 13.
Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz indicated on Friday that his country might still be on a war footing with Iran, saying he had instructed the military to prepare an enforcement plan against the country.
The plan 'includes maintaining Israel's air superiority, preventing nuclear advancement and missile production, and responses to Iran for supporting terrorist activities against Israel', Katz said.
Katz said on Thursday that Israel had wanted to 'eliminate' Khamenei and would not have required US permission to do so.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
34 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
What cases did the US Supreme Court decide at the end of its 2024 term?
The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest term with a host of blockbuster decisions, touching on everything from healthcare coverage to school reading lists. On Friday, the court issued the final decisions of the 2024 term before it takes several months of recess. The nine justices on its bench will reconvene in October. But before their departure, the justices made headlines. In a major victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the six-person conservative majority decided to limit the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide. Trump has long denounced court injunctions as an attack on his executive authority. In two other rulings, the Supreme Court's conservative majority again banded together. One decision allowed parents to opt out of school materials that include LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the go-ahead to Texas to place barriers to prevent youth from viewing online pornography. But a decision on healthcare access saw some conservative justices align with their three left-wing colleagues. Here is an overview of their final rulings of the 2024 term. Court upholds preventive care requirements In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saw its usual ideological divides fracture. Three conservative justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined with the court's liberal branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a six-to-three ruling. At stake was the ability of a government task force to determine what kinds of preventive healthcare the country's insurance providers had to cover. It was the latest case to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation passed under former President Barack Obama to expand healthcare access. This case focused on a section of the act that allowed a panel of health experts – under the Department of Health and Human Services – to determine what preventive services should be covered at no cost. A group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses had challenged the legality of that task force, though. They argued that the expert panel was a violation of the Appointments Clause, a section of the Constitution that requires certain political appointees to be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate. The group had previously secured an injunction against the task force's decision that HIV prevention medications be covered as preventive care. That specific injunction was not weighed in the Supreme Court's decision. But writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh affirmed that the task force was constitutional, because it was made up of 'inferior officers' who did not need Senate approval. Court gives nod to Texas's age restrictions on porn Several states, including Texas, require users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, with the aim of shielding minors from inappropriate material. But Texas's law came under the Supreme Court's microscope on Friday, in a case called Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton. The Free Speech Coalition is a nonprofit that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They sued Texas's attorney general, Paxton, arguing that the age-verification law would dampen First Amendment rights, which protect the right to free expression, free association and privacy. The plaintiffs noted the risks posed by sharing personally identifying information online, including the possibility that identifying information like birthdates and sensitive data could be leaked. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, warned that Texas's law 'robs people of anonymity'. Writing for the Supreme Court's conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that 'submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise' of First Amendment rights. But, he added, 'adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification' altogether. The majority upheld Texas's law. Court affirms children can withdraw from LGBTQ school material The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority also continued its streak of religious freedom victories, with a decision in Mahmoud v Taylor. That case centred on the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, where books portraying LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary school curricula. One text, for example, was a picture book called Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl mustering the courage to give a Valentine to a female classmate. Another book, titled Pride Puppy, follows a child searching for her lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride. Parents of children in the school district objected to the material on religious grounds, and some books, like Pride Puppy, were eventually withdrawn. But the board eventually announced it would refuse to allow parents to opt out of the approved material, on the basis that it would create disruptions in the learning environment. Some education officials also argued that allowing kids to opt out of LGBTQ material would confer a stigma on the people who identify as part of that community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life. In the majority's decision, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the education board's policy 'conveys that parents' religious views are not welcome in the 'fully inclusive environment' that the Board purports to foster'. 'The curriculum itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender,' Alito wrote. Court limits the use of nationwide injunctions Arguably, the biggest decision of the day was another ruling decided by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. In the case Trump v CASA, the Trump administration had appealed the use of nationwide injunctions all the way up to the highest court in the land. At stake was an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office for his second term. That order sought to whittle down the concept of birthright citizenship, a right conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Previously, birthright citizenship had applied to nearly everyone born on US soil: Regardless of their parents' nationality, the child would receive US citizenship. But Trump has denounced that application of birthright citizenship as too broad. In his executive order, he put restrictions on birthright citizenship depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants. Legal challenges erupted as soon as the executive order was published, citing Supreme Court precedent that upheld birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the executive order from taking effect. The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh the merits of Trump's order on birthright citizenship. But it did evaluate a Trump administration petition arguing that the nationwide injunctions were instances of judicial overreach. The conservative supermajority sided with Trump, saying that injunctions should generally not be universal but instead should focus on relief for the specific plaintiffs at hand. One possible exception, however, would be for class action lawsuits. Amy Coney Barrett, the court's latest addition and a Trump appointee, penned the majority's decision. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.'
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
University of Virginia president resigns under US government pressure
The president of the University of Virginia has resigned his position under pressure from the United States Department of Justice, which pushed for his departure amid scrutiny of the school's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices. In an email sent to the university community on Friday and circulated on social media, university president James Ryan said he was resigning to protect the institution from facing the ire of the government. 'I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job,' he wrote. 'To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld.' Ryan's resignation has been accepted by the board, two sources told The New York Times, which first broke the story. It remains unclear exactly when he will leave his post. His departure is the latest indication of ongoing tensions between the administration of President Donald Trump and the academic community. During his second term, President Trump has increasingly sought to reshape higher education by attacking diversity initiatives, pushing for crackdowns on pro-Palestinian student protesters, and seeking reviews of hiring and enrollment practices. Ryan's departure marks a new frontier in a campaign that has almost exclusively targeted Ivy League schools. Critics also say it shows a shift in the government's rationale, away from allegations of rampant anti-Semitism on campus and towards more aggressive policing of diversity initiatives. Just a day prior, the Justice Department announced it would investigate another public school, the University of California, for its use of diversity standards. Ryan, who has led the University of Virginia since 2018, faced criticism that he failed to heed federal orders to eliminate DEI policies. An anonymous source told The Associated Press news agency that his removal was pushed by the Justice Department as a way to help resolve an inquiry targeting the school. Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, called Ryan's ouster an example of the Trump administration using 'thuggery instead of rational discourse'. 'This is a dark day for the University of Virginia, a dark day for higher education, and it promises more of the same,' Mitchell said. 'It's clear the administration is not done and will use every tool that it can make or invent to exert its will over higher education.' Virginia's Democratic senators react In a joint statement, Virginia's senators, both Democrats, said it was outrageous that the Trump administration would demand Ryan's resignation over ''culture war' traps'. 'This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future,' Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said. After campaigning on a promise to end 'wokeness' in education, Trump signed an executive order in January calling for an end to federal funding that would support educational institutions with DEI programming. He accused schools of indoctrinating 'children in radical, anti-American ideologies' without the permission of their parents. The Department of Education has since opened investigations into dozens of colleges, arguing that diversity initiatives discriminate against white and Asian American students. The response from schools has been scattered. Some have closed DEI offices, ended diversity scholarships and no longer require diversity statements as part of the hiring process. Still, others have held firm on diversity policies. The University of Virginia became a flashpoint after conservative critics accused it of simply renaming its DEI initiatives. The school's governing body voted to shutter the DEI office in March and end diversity policies in admissions, hiring, financial aid and other areas. Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin celebrated the action, declaring that 'DEI is done at the University of Virginia'. But America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, said that DEI had simply taken another form at the school. In a May letter to the Justice Department, the group said the university chose to 'rename, repackage, and redeploy the same unlawful infrastructure under a lexicon of euphemisms'. The group directly took aim at Ryan, noting that he joined hundreds of other college presidents in signing a public statement condemning the 'overreach and political interference' of the Trump administration. On Friday, the group said it will continue to use every available tool to root out what it has called discriminatory systems. 'This week's developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution,' Megan Redshaw, a lawyer with the group, said in a statement. 'They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority.' Until now, the White House had directed most of its attention at Harvard University and other elite institutions that Trump sees as bastions of liberalism. Harvard has lost more than $2.6bn in federal research grants amid its battle with the government, which also attempted to block the school from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. Harvard and its $53bn endowment are uniquely positioned to weather the government's financial pressure. Public universities, however, are far more dependent on taxpayer money and could be more vulnerable. The University of Virginia's $10bn endowment is among the largest for public universities, while the vast majority have far less.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Qatar emphasises peaceful resolution of conflicts after DRC-Rwanda deal
Qatari diplomat Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khulaifi has welcomed the peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), saying that it came after several rounds of talks, some of which were held in Doha. The deal, signed in Washington, DC, on Friday with backing from the United States and Qatar, will see Rwandan soldiers withdraw from the DRC and the two countries set up mechanisms to enhance trade and security cooperation. 'We hope that the sides will adhere to the terms of the agreement to de-escalate and bolster the security and stability of the … region,' al-Khulaifi, who serves as minister of state at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Al Jazeera. Al-Khulaifi added that the meeting between Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame, hosted by Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha in March, was followed by a series of talks, paving the way for Friday's deal. 'Qatar enjoys excellent relationships with both countries and has earned the trust of both countries as a mediator and international partner trying to resolve these issues,' he said. 'Doha was a platform for these meetings, and we contributed [to reaching the agreement] with the US.' The Reuters news agency reported earlier this month that Qatar presented a draft peace proposal to Rwanda and the DRC after negotiations in Doha. On Friday, the US Department of State said the US, Qatar, the African Union and Togo 'will continue to engage both parties to ensure implementation of the obligations laid out in the agreement'. The agreement has sparked hopes of ending the conflict in the DRC, where the Rwanda-backed M23 armed group has been advancing in the resource-rich east of the country. The renewed violence had raised fears of igniting a full-blown conflict, akin to the wars that the DRC endured in the late 1990s, involving several African countries, which killed millions of people. 'Qatar fully believes in dialogue as the cornerstone for resolving conflict through peaceful means,' al-Khulaifi said. 'Qatar believes that mediation is a pillar of its foreign policy. That's why, hopefully, you will find Qatar always racing to try to resolve issues between countries, even countries that are geographically far from Qatar.' Qatar has played a key role in securing diplomatic deals in various conflicts across the world over the past years. Most recently, it helped mediate the ceasefire agreement that ended the 12-day war between Israel and Iran. 'What pleases me is that this agreement came days after another agreement which Qatar contributed to with the US – and that's the ceasefire between Iran and Israel,' al-Khulaifi said. 'Qatar will not spare any efforts to engage in more attempts to de-escalate and pursue peaceful means to end these conflicts.'
