Why Trump needs the world to believe Iran's nuclear program is 'obliterated'
onpicture id="4K59BMS_AFP__20250624__63KL9ZG__v1__HighRes__UsPoliticsNatoSummitTrumpDepart_jpg" crop="16x10" layout="full"] US President Donald Trump.
Analysis -
There are two reasons why US President Donald Trump needs the world to believe his adamant claims that Iran's nuclear program has been obliterated.
First, his entire presidency is set up to reflect glory on his own strongman persona, fuelling a narrative of courageous, unique and infallible leadership. Information that contradicts the myth is not welcome.
Second, any evidence that Iran retains the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons or to restart its program after daring US bombing raids would raise an uncomfortable question: should the United States use military action again to try to finish the job and meet any future advances in Iran's capabilities with more strikes? This would potentially open a years-long period of quasi-war with Iran for which Trump has no appetite; raise the risks of a wider conflict; and anger his MAGA base.
Trump and his top lieutenants are conjuring amped-up outrage and slamming the media for reporting an initial, "low confidence" assessment by the Defence Intelligence Agency that US attacks on three of Iran's facilities failed to destroy the core components of its nuclear program and likely only set it back by months.
Trump redoubled his efforts in a news conference at the NATO summit to portray the raid as "very, very successful." He added, "It was called obliteration. No other military on Earth could have done it."
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a theatrical outburst against CNN and
The New York Times
after they reported on the assessment. Such outlets "try to find a way to spin it for their own political reasons to try to hurt President Trump or our country, they don't care what the troops think", Hegseth said, showing the performative zeal that prompted the president to lift him from Fox News to head the Pentagon.
The White House highlighted an assessment from Israel's military chief of staff Wednesday that Iran's nuclear program suffered "systemic" damage and was set back years, and CIA director John Ratcliffe said in a statement that the agency had evidence it had been "severely damaged."
But these statements, while suggesting Iran has suffered a serious blow, do not yet fully support Trump's expansive claims.
The president's tactics were familiar. He is going global with his strategy of creating his own narratives whether or not there is yet evidence to prove them. He showed how successful this could be with his false claims of election fraud in 2020.
If the world believes that Iran's nuclear program is destroyed and all sources suggesting otherwise are discredited, Trump has a rationale for taking no further action.
Everything that involves intelligence is, by definition, opaque. And lasting judgements, from technical or human sources, on how far the US set back Iran's nuclear program could take months. It's also not possible to know whether the administration does have more information on the aftermath of the strikes that it is not releasing for operational reasons.
A more judicious initial White House response to the raids might have avoided the current controversy. But its frantic spin was inevitable, since Trump declared while B-2 bombers were still aloft that Saturday's mission was a total, overwhelming success. Any contrary evidence would mean an embarrassing reversal and challenge his ego and credibility.
But the hyper-emotional response to honest questioning over whether Iran's nuclear program has truly been wiped out makes the White House look defensive, raising doubts about its truthfulness. And it is distracting from aspects of the mission for which Trump can claim credit - a flawless round-the-world bombing raid with no US casualties and his effective pressure on Israel and Iran to stop fighting as well as his success in not being pulled into a longer war.
Growing controversy over Iran also overshadowed an undeniable achievement by Trump at the summit in the Netherlands in getting a commitment from member states to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035. The target will be hard to reach. But no other president came close to achieving anything similar.
The White House only has itself to blame.
Its failure to properly explain to Americans why Trump's administration suddenly came to believe Iran was weeks away from building a nuclear weapon created suspicion over its motives. Its failure to inform some top Democrats that the B-2 bombing mission was underway needlessly politicised an issue on which Trump could expect substantial support across the aisle. The administration then postponed Capitol Hill briefings on the strikes until Thursday. It's unclear whether those sessions will be productive.
Trump's intelligence chiefs rushed to bolster his claims on Wednesday. Ratcliffe's statement said the CIA had obtained "a body of credible evidence" that Iran's nuclear program had been "severely damaged". This included intelligence from a "reliable source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years," Ratcliffe said. His comments fell short, however, of Trump's claims of obliteration.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard posted on X that "new intelligence" showed that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "destroyed".
None of the pushback offered evidence that would allow Americans to make up their own minds. It did nothing to back up Trump's claim in the Hague Wednesday that Iran had not moved any of its stock of enriched uranium before the raids. Nor did it address whether Iran maintains secret facilities that it could use to race toward a bomb.
The administration looks like it's trying to obscure difficult questions.
Contrary to what Hegseth claimed, it is not unpatriotic to report information confirmed by administration officials questioning the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program. And no one is attacking the pilots of the B-2 bombers who undertook the hazardous multi-hour mission. The tone of media coverage of their efforts has been marked by marvelling rather than criticism.
The issue is whether the bunker-busting bombs, used in action for the first time, really did penetrate the Fordow nuclear facility, buried under hundreds of feet of rock and cement, and destroy centrifuges that spin uranium. And it's about whether Trump is truly fulfilling his duties as president if he ignores any evidence the objectives were not fully met.
The administration's wild reaction to the preliminary, low-confidence Pentagon intelligence report creates another dangerous possibility - that it's pressuring the intelligence community to tailor intelligence to meet its political needs.
This corrosive trend has been disastrous to US national security in the past. Such behaviour is a major concern with huge national security implications under a president who has trashed the US intelligence community and appointed officials to lead it who share his politicized views.
Future intelligence reports - which could take months to conduct - might well conclude that Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed or set back far from the point of approaching a weapon.
If they don't, Trump has a huge political and diplomatic problem.
Now that the United States has taken military action alongside Israel in an attempt to eradicate Iran's nuclear program, he has created a standard for himself.
If credible evidence emerges that Iran has salvaged aspects of its program, either centrifuges or stocks of enriched uranium, as has been reported, the president - or Israel - will come under pressure to take new action to stop it. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said it's possible that Iran moved uranium, which is easily portable, before US and Israeli raids.
Future US action against Iran could create the conditions for the prolonged war or deeper low-level conflict in the Middle East that Trump has sworn to avoid, and that would threaten to create a new fracture in his "Make America Great Again" political base.
There is a precedent for such prolonged and expensive engagements. After the 1991 Gulf War, the US-led coalition maintained no-fly zones in Iraq to protect the Kurdish minority in the north and Shiites in the south and to contain Saddam Hussein's military for more than a decade.
Uncertainty over the fate of Iran's nuclear program could also complicate efforts to reach a diplomatic solution with the Islamic Republic. Trump said at the NATO summit on Wednesday that US and Iranian negotiators would meet next week. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff told CNBC on Wednesday that his boss was looking for a "comprehensive peace agreement" with Iran that would go beyond the nuclear question. It would be an extraordinary breakthrough after 45 years of antagonism. If Trump could end the US estrangement with the Islamic Republic - perhaps after breaking the foundation of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's power with military action - he could rightfully claim a major legacy achievement.
"I think that they are ready; that is my strong sense," said Witkoff.
Yet such hopes are dependent on developments in the opaque Iranian system; political forces that the US cannot control; and extremist elements, including in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that have a lot to lose in terms of prestige and economic power if the regime changes or falls.
Some experts believe that Iran will respond to the US and Israel assault by reasoning that it is even more imperative to develop a nuclear bomb to ensure the regime's survival. And if Tehran rejects cooperation with the IAEA and its inspectors, it might be able to evade outside monitoring.
Trump, however, played down expectations for a lasting agreement with Iran on Wednesday. "We may sign an agreement. I don't know. To me, I don't think it's that necessary. I mean, they had a war. They fought, and now, they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not," the president said.
He implied that a statement by Iran not to seek nuclear weapons would undercut his own claim that their program was obliterated.
The complete truth may not be known for months.
But it would be a deep irony if, 20 years after a war provoked by cherry-picked intelligence on a weapons of mass destruction program that did not exist, another White House tweaked intelligence to misrepresent a program in Iran that was active.
-
CNN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Breakthrough For Justice At Bonn Climate Talks - Amidst A System In Crisis
Bonn, Germany, 26 June 2025 - After two tense weeks of negotiations, one breakthrough emerged in the SB 62 climate talks: civil society's Just Transition priorities were officially tabled in the UN climate process, thanks to relentless pressure from social movements, workers, and frontline communities. This vital step opens the door in the fight for transitions that put people first - ensuring climate action centres justice, dignity, and decent work, rather than enabling corporate greenwashing or elite control. But beyond this opening, Bonn laid bare a system in crisis. Even as NATO leaders just 200km away pledged more than US$1 trillion a year in additional military spending, rich polluting countries showed up at the climate talks pleading poverty. The silence on war, genocide, and rising global inequality was deafening. Despite the escalating toll of climate impacts and injustice, these talks revealed a growing chasm between the urgent demands of communities on the frontlines of climate breakdown and the hollow, evasive language of a process struggling to retain relevance. Negotiations on adaptation were little more than a smokescreen. Developed nations dodged their financial obligations towards developing countries once again, and held the process hostage, preventing progress. The ghost of Baku haunted the talks, with developing countries facing fierce pushback when they united in their demand for a formal agenda item on the provision of climate finance by developed countries. And it's clear the so-called 'Baku to Belém' roadmap remains riddled with holes. Without new, additional and grant-based public finance from historical emitters, there will be no money to fund a real Just Transition, no closing of the ambition gap, and no hope of holding the line at 1.5°C. The COP30 Presidency and all parties must put a plan in place to address the critical issue of the provision of climate finance, or risk a blow up. As countries belatedly prepare their new climate action plans (Nationally Determined Contributions), one thing is clear: they will fall far short of what is needed. Despite this, there was a resounding silence around the ambition gap that is so clearly emerging. Countries that hold historic responsibility for the climate crisis continue to expand oil and gas exploration while pushing developing countries to shoulder the burden they themselves refuse to bear - both in cutting emissions and providing climate finance. It's a double standard that deepens injustice and delays real action. Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network International, said: 'Enough is enough. While bombs get billions and polluters are increasing their record profits, Bonn has once again exposed a system rigged to protect polluters and profiteers - complicit in a global order that funds destruction but balks at paying for survival. "But even in this broken space, people's power shone through. Due to the relentless pressure from civil society, the Just Transition fight finally made it into the formal process, laying the table for a win for workers, for communities, and for every person fighting to build a future rooted in dignity and hope. Decision-makers must come to Belém with the commitment to make this a reality. "As this process drifts further from the real world, it is grassroots movements that continue to lead the way - resisting delay, greenwashing, and false solutions with vision, urgency, and courage. From the streets of Bonn to the heart of Belém, the fight for climate justice is turning into a roar that cannot be ignored." Caroline Brouillette, Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada: 'The world is facing a treacherous moment. Political headwinds and unfair economic rules are preventing the level of climate action we need. The UNFCCC feels increasingly disconnected from the real world. 'Amidst the dark clouds of these existential challenges to the planet and to this process, there is a ray of sunshine: parties are finding common ground around a Just Transition. The text forwarded to Belem offers us a fighting chance to a COP30 outcome that truly connects workers, communities and Peoples with the Paris Agreement.' Amiera Sawas, Head of Research & Policy, Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative: 'As the Northern hemisphere suffers deadly heatwaves, UN climate talks remain frozen in an out-of-touch process. War and military spending escalated outside, while inside there was no discussion—and no finance. Civil society fought to bring negotiations into the real world, but geopolitics and the fossil fuel lobby kept derailing progress. Even successes, like the draft text for the 'Just Transition Work Programme' informed by workers and Indigenous Peoples, were nearly paralyzed by fossil fuel interests at the end. We are already at risk of breaching the 1.5 temperature limit, there's no time for paralysis. There's a real risk that the UN climate talks fail to address the crisis's biggest drivers: coal, oil, and gas. We cannot afford any more failure, we must urgently do better. And we will - whether inside or outside the UN. Brazil is talking big but its actions speak louder than words and its recent approval of new oil extraction in the Amazon is the worst possible signal.' Stela Herschmann, Climate Policy Specialist for Observatório do Clima (Brazil): 'This is a party-driven process. What the Bonn meeting showed us is that the parties want to discuss public finance. Despite Brazil's best intentions to streamline the agenda and make progress on other issues, it may not be possible to do so without including a conversation about public finance in the official COP30 agenda. 'Brazil had three priorities for Bonn. One of them, Just Transition, saw good progress and produced a preparatory text with key asks from civil society organizations so this work program can actually deliver justice to the people. The other two resemble Baku. The text on indicators for the global goal of adaptation advanced well but is being held until the last minute due to the discussion around finance and means of implementation. The UAE dialogue on the implementation of the Global Stocktake, did not progress as much. We will leave Bonn with two similar documents because the parties could not agree on a single informal note, and we can expect to see the same disputes over the scope and modalities in Belém.' Mariana Paoli, Global Advocacy Lead, Christian Aid: 'The Bonn climate talks have shown that there's hangover from the chaotic ending at COP29 in Baku. Finance remains the elephant in the room. While negotiators circled around the issue in Boon , limited progress was made. We cannot afford another year of delay - COP30 must deliver where COP29 fell short. 'There has been an over reliance on the illusion that private finance will solve the climate crisis. Its growing presence in these spaces is starting to resemble a Trojan horse. Public grants based finance is essential to deliver climate action, decisions should be done based on the needs of communities and not profits and should be rooted in fairness and science.' Teresa Anderson, ActionAid International: "Rich countries' continued refusal to put real climate finance on the table means that climate talks are facing uncertain times. For once, however, it's not all bad news. Governments are starting to get excited about Just Transition, and shaping energy and food systems in a way that really works for workers, women, farmers and communities. This comes at such a critical time, amid so much economic uncertainty, when many people feel they are being forced to choose between their immediate needs and a climate safe future. If approved at COP30, the Just Transition mechanism will deliver action on the ground, requiring and supporting governments to put people's needs first and foremost at the start of every climate plan. This represents a major evolution in climate action, and the spark of hope that our planet urgently needs." Nithi Nesadurai, Director & Regional Coordinator, CAN Southeast Asia: 'The Bonn climate meeting took place within the backdrop of a continuing genocide in Gaza, a hot war and the NATO Summit. Interestingly, while developed countries blocked decisions on their financial obligations on all the major climate negotiating items, a short distance away in The Hague, NATO members readily agreed to increase their military budgets to 5 per cent of GDP. Easily amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, it shows finance is available, unlike what they implied in the Bonn negotiations. If not for the progress on the Just Transition Work Programme, which gives civil society a core issue to rally around on the road to Belem, this meeting offered little to get excited about on all other fronts.' Nafkote Dabi, Climate Policy Lead, Oxfam International: 'The Bonn conference exposes the stark injustice between rich and poor countries. The richest, primarily responsible for the climate crisis, are dodging their duty to provide public, grant-based finance for developing countries to adapt and rebuild. As warming spirals toward a catastrophic 3°C, urgent action is critical. Rich countries must own their climate debt and stop pushing private finance, that prioritizes profit over people, as a solution. The Brazilian COP presidency must also step up and champion equity and justice in Belem.' Sanjay Vashist, Director, Climate Action Network South Asia: 'Climate talks in Bonn have failed South Asia once again. While our communities face climate-induced floods, heatwaves, and hunger, wealthy nations dodge their obligations, offering empty words on adaptation and loss and damage finance. The refusal to put public finance on the table is a betrayal. As we pivot to COP30 in Belém, we demand not just promises, but delivery—real, predictable, and equitable finance. The era of evasion must end. The lives of millions in South Asia depend on it, however the UNFCCC process appears to have succumbed to fossil fuel lobbyists and private sector forces.' Romain Ioualalen, Global Policy lead at Oil Change International: 'Bonn saw the Global North further retreat from its responsibilities to provide public finance for climate action, instead promoting fabricated narratives on private finance filling the gap - despite evidence the market-led approach is not delivering. On top of blocking finance, rich countries failed their homework on fossil fuels with four Global North countries responsible for 70% of projected oil and gas expansion, which made calls from developed parties to center the fossil fuel phaseout in the negotiations continue to ring hollow and hypocritical. An outcome on just transition in Belém is within reach and could provide momentum for centering justice in the transition.' Ife Kilimanjaro, U.S. Climate Action Network: 'Bonn confirmed the UNFCCC feels dangerously out of touch with global crises—war, inequality, and a climate already past 1.5 degrees. The fight for public climate finance was an uphill battle; rich nations diverted responsibility, pushing risky private solutions that won't close the ambition gap. Yet, a vital glimmer of hope emerged: civil society secured demands in the Just Transition text. This shows organized people can make progress even in disconnected spaces. For USCAN, it's clear: we must keep bridging the gap between power and lived realities, demanding genuine accountability and justice.' Fernanda de Carvalho, WWF Global Climate and Energy Policy Lead:"The breakthrough we achieved in Dubai is at stake. Developed countries who should be leading the way, continue to explore for, and use fossil fuels while deforestation is on the rise. We need them to step up at the global level and commit to phasing out all fossil fuels, putting some much-needed momentum into the international climate talks. We also need strong measures to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. We look to Belém as a political course-correction moment, and we count on the Brazilian Presidency and the political will of all countries to deliver that." Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager, Climate Change, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), India: 'We do not see appetite to uphold multilateralism from developed countries, and Bonn made that clear. The refusal to dive deeper into Article 9.1 and hear out concerns from developing countries about unilateral trade measures, symbolise the imbalance of power that persists in this space. While civil society is driving momentum on issues like just transition, all other spaces remain paralysed by inequity, and refusal of the Global North to support, fund and enable climate action in the rest of the world in line with its historical duty.' Ann Harrison, Climate Justice Policy Adviser, Amnesty International: 'Human rights references and protections were again sacrificed at the altar of consensus which drives down ambition. UNFCCC reform must be on the table, including greater protections for free speech and peaceful protest which were further restricted, particularly for actions protesting the genocide in Gaza and solidarity actions for imprisoned defenders. Fossil fuel producers continue to undermine progress towards the full, fast, fair and funded fossil fuel phase out and just transition we need. And let's be clear, providing adequate public, grants-based climate finance, especially for adaptation and loss and damage is also a human rights obligation for developed countries and it must be massively scaled up to contribute towards climate justice.' Andreas Sieber, Associate Director of Global Policy and Campaigns: 'Bonn was bogged down by political divisions and bruised by global tensions, with results that leave much to be desired. A serious injection of energy and urgency is required as we look ahead to COP30 in Belém. Negotiators must make progress on implementing the Global Stocktake, closing the ambition gap, and delivering the finance needed to turn ambition into action. 'Civil society must hold the line on the agreement to triple renewables and phase out fossil fuels, and rich countries must course correct after Baku's shortcomings. COP30 has much to make up for, and for it to be a success, the Presidency must lead with the integrity, diplomacy and flexibility this crisis demands.' Gaïa Febvre, Réseau Action Climat France, International Policy Lead: 'As the Bonn climate talks come to a close, it is shocking to see France, once the proud 'guardian' of the Paris Agreement, actively blocking a more ambitious EU NDC. 'What's the point of hosting summits and delivering grand speeches if, behind closed doors, France stalls the very commitments needed to keep 1.5°C alive? The Paris Agreement doesn't need more ceremony, it needs leadership. It needs a France that pushes the EU to step up, not one that defends the status quo or fossil interests. The window to act is closing. France must choose: will it honor the legacy of Paris, or betray it?'
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
The Five Percenters: NATO's Promise Of War
The confidence trickster was at it again on his visit to The Hague, reluctantly meeting members of the overly large family that is NATO. President Donald Trump was hoping to impress upon all present that allies of the United States, whatever inclination and whatever their domestic policy, should spend mightily on defence, inflating the margins of sense and sensibility against marginal threats. Never mind the strain placed on the national budget over such absurd priorities as welfare, health or education. The marvellous irony in this is that much of the budget increases have been prompted by Trump's perceived unreliability and capriciousness when it comes to European affairs. Would he, for instance, treat obligations of collective defence outlined in Article 5 of the organisation's governing treaty with utmost seriousness? Since Washington cannot be relied upon to hold the fort against the satanic savages from the East, various European countries have been encouraging a spike in defence spending to fight the sprites and hobgoblins troubling their consciences at night. The European Union, for instance, has put in place initiatives that will make getting more weaponry and investing in the military industrial complex easier than ever, raising the threshold of defence expenditure across all member countries to 3.5% of GDP by the end of the decade. And then there is the Ukraine conflict, a war Brussels cannot bear to see end on terms that might be remotely favourable to Russia. The promised pecuniary spray made at the NATO summit was seen by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte as utterly natural if not eminently sensible. Not much else was. It was Rutte who remarked with infantile fawning that 'Sometimes Daddy has to use tough language' when it came to sorting out the murderous bickering between Israel and Iran. Daddy Trump approved. 'He likes me, I think he likes me,' the US president crowed with glowing satisfaction. Rutte's behaviour has been viewed with suspicion, as well it should. Under his direction, NATO headquarters have made a point of diminishing any focus on climate change and its Women, Peace, and Security agenda. He has failed to make much of Trump's mania for the annexation of Greenland, or the President's gladiatorial abuse of certain leaders when visiting the White House – Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa come to mind. 'He is not paid to implement MAGA policy,' grumbled a European NATO diplomat to Euroactive. In his doorstep statement of June 25, Rutte made his wish known that the NATO collective possess both the money and capabilities to cope, not just with Russia 'but also the massive build-up of military in China, and the fact that North Korea, China and Iran, are supporting the war effort in Ukraine'. Lashings of butter were also added to the Trump ego when responding to questions. 'Would you really think that the seven or eight countries not at 2% [of GDP expenditure on defence] at the beginning of this year would have reached the 2% if Trump would not have been elected President of the United States?' It was only appropriate, given the contributions of the US ('over 50% of the total NATO economy'), that things had to change for the Europeans and Canadians. The centrepiece of the Hague Summit Declaration is a promise that 5% of member countries' gross GDP will go to 'core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations'. Traditional bogeyman Russia is the predictable antagonist, posing a 'long-term threat […] to Euro-Atlantic security', but so was 'the persistent threat of terrorism'. The target is optimistic, given NATO's own recent estimates that nine members spend less than the current target of 2% of GDP. What is misleading in the declaration is the accounting process: the 3.5% of annual GDP that will be spent 'on the agreed definition of NATO defence expenditure by 2035 to resource core defence requirements, and to meet NATO Capability Targets' is one component. The other 1.5%, a figure based on a creative management of accounts, is intended to 'protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base.' Another misleading element in the declaration is the claimed unanimity of member states. The Baltic countries and Poland are forever engaged in increasing their defence budgets in anticipation of a Russian attack, but the same cannot be said of other countries less disposed to the issue. Slovakia's Prime Minister Robert Fico, for instance, declared on the eve of the summit that his country had 'better things to spend money on'. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has also called the 5% target 'incompatible with our world view', preferring to focus on a policy of prudent procurement. Rutte seemed to revel in his role as wallah and jesting sycophant, making sure Trump was not only placated but massaged into a state of satisfaction. It was a sight all the stranger for the fact that Trump's view of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a warm one. Unfortunately for the secretary general, his role will be forever etched in the context of European history as an aspiring warmonger, one valued at 5% of the GDP of any of the NATO member states. Hardly a flattering epitaph.
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trump says he would consider bombing Iran again, drops plan to lift sanctions
By Trevor Hunnicutt and Steve Holland , Reuters US President Donald Trump Photo: SAUL LOEB / AFP US President Donald Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. Trump reacted sternly to Khamanei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids last weekend against Iranian nuclear sites. Khamanei said Iran "slapped America in the face" by launching an attack against a major US base in Qatar following the US bombing raids. Khamanei also said Iran would never surrender. Trump said he had spared Khamanei's life. US officials told Reuters on 15 June that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the supreme leader. "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," Trump said in a social media post. "I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH," he said. Iran said a potential nuclear deal was conditional on the US ending its "disrespectful tone" toward the Supreme Leader. "If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a post on X. Trump also said that in recent days he had been working on the possible removal of sanctions on Iran to give it a chance for a speedy recovery. He said he had now abandoned that effort. "I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more," he said. Trump said at a White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again, when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he said. Trump said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN nuclear watchdog - or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites after they were bombed last weekend. Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to the sites was not as profound as he has said. The IAEA chief, Rafael Grossi, said that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on 13 June. However, Iran's parliament approved moves to suspend such inspections. Araqchi indicated that Tehran may reject any request by the head of the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites. Trump said Iran still wants to meet about the way forward. The White House said that no meeting between the US and an Iranian delegation has been scheduled thus far. - Reuters
