Iran's Supreme Leader threatens to target US bases again, says America was "dealt a severe slap to the face"
Tehran: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed US President Donald Trump had "exaggerated" the effect of strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and threatened to target American military bases again, The Times of Israel reported.
In a televised speech on Thursday, Khamenei claimed Iran's victory in the 12-day air war launched by Israel and inflicting a "severe slap" to the US. He made these remarks in his first speech since a ceasefire was declared between Iran and Israel.
He said, "The American president exaggerated events in unusual ways, and it turned out that he needed this exaggeration." Khamenei said the US "has gained nothing from this war," adding that American strikes "did nothing significant" to Iranian nuclear facilities.
Claiming victory in the conflict, he said, "The Islamic Republic won, and in retaliation dealt a severe slap to the face of America," referring to Iran's missile launch targeting US military base in Qatar, according to The Times of Israel report.
He threatened, "Such an action can be repeated in the future, too" and mentioned that Iran has "access to key US centers in the region and can take action whenever it deems necessary."
Tensions escalated in West Asia after the US conducted precision airstrikes early Sunday morning on three key Iranian nuclear facilities under "Operation Midnight Hammer." Iran retaliated by launching multiple missiles at US military installations in Qatar and Iraq, including the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, CNN reported.
His remarks came two days after a ceasefire ended the war between Iran and Israel. He asserted that Iran will "never" surrender and the "enemy will definitely pay a heavy price" if "any aggression occurs."
He said, "Should any aggression occur, the enemy will definitely pay a heavy price." Khamenei said, "Surrender will never happen. Our nation is powerful."
Iran's Supreme Leader said that the US had intervened in the war only because "it felt that if it did not intervene, the Zionist regime would be utterly destroyed."
Congratulating Iran for securing a win against Iran, he said, "I want to congratulate the great Iranian nation... for its victory over the fallacious Zionist regime, The Times of Israel reported.
Khamenei has not been seen in public since taking shelter in a secret location after the conflict started on June 13, when Israel carried out an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and targeted top military commanders and scientists.
Reports have indicated that Khamenei was stopped from communicating with the outside world due to fears of giving away his location. A state funeral will be held in Tehran on Saturday for top commanders and nuclear scientists killed in the conflict, as per the report.
Khamenei also issued a threat to Israel on the social media platform X. "The Zionist regime must know that attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran will result in a heavy cost for them," he posted on X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
an hour ago
- Observer
Another check on Trump's power fades
The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision will allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr coined the 'imperial presidency'. Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard M Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors-general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorised and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorisation from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. But while the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing Trump's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. In a rare move that signalled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench on Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. — The New York Times Charlie Savage The writer has been writing about presidential power and legal policy for more than two decades
Observer
an hour ago
- Observer
Trump cuts off US trade talks with Canada
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump abruptly cut off trade talks with Canada on Friday over its tax targeting US technology firms, saying that it was a "blatant attack" and that he would set a new tariff rate on Canadian goods within the next week. The move plunges US-Canada relations back into chaos after a period of relative calm that included a cordial G7 meeting in mid-June where Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed to wrap up a new economic agreement within 30 days. It also came just hours after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent struck an upbeat tone on trade, touting progress had been made with China on reviving the flow of critical minerals for the US manufacturing sector and in other key tariff negotiations. The often-chaotic rollout of Trump's import levies since his return to office this year has frequently whipsawed financial markets, and have begun to weigh on consumer spending, the bedrock of the US economy. US stocks were briefly batted lower by his broadside against Canada, but the S&P 500 and Nasdaq managed to close out the week at record highs. Trump's action comes ahead of Canada's plans to begin collecting on Monday a previously enacted digital services tax on US technology firms, including Amazon, Meta, Alphabet's Google, and Apple, among others. The tax is 3% of the digital services revenue a firm takes in from Canadian users above $20 million in a calendar year, and payments will be retroactive to 2022. Trump, in a post on his Truth Social media platform, called the tax "a direct and blatant attack on our country" and said Canada was a "very difficult country to TRADE with." "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately," Trump said. "We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven-day period." Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said that the negotiations with Canada would not resume "until they straighten out their act," adding that the US holds "such power over Canada." Canada is the second-largest US trading partner after Mexico, and the largest buyer of US exports. It bought $349.4 billion of US goods last year and exported $412.7 billion to the US, according to US Census Bureau data. Carney's office responded to Trump's announcement by saying: "The Canadian government will continue to engage in these complex negotiations with the United States in the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses." Bessent sought to downplay the U.S.-Canadian dispute in a CNBC interview, saying US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would likely open a Section 301 probe into Canada's digital tax that would clear the way for tariff retaliation in the amount of harm to U.S. firms, which he said was roughly $2 billion. The US has prepared similar retaliation against European countries that have imposed digital taxes. A USTR spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. — Reuters
Observer
an hour ago
- Observer
Opec+ set to make another accelerated oil output hike for August
LONDON: The world's largest group of oil producers, Opec+, is set to announce another big increase of 411,000 barrels per day in production for August as it looks to regain market share, four delegates from the group said. If the increase is agreed, it would bring the total rise in supply from Opec+ to 1.78 million bpd so far this year, equivalent to over 1.5% of total global demand. The group has not yet increased production by the volumes agreed because some members are compensating for previous overproduction and others need longer to bring output back online. The group has made a radical change in policy this year, after several years of output cuts totalling more than 5 million bpd. This came when eight members started to unwind their most recent output cut of 2.2 million bpd starting in April and accelerated the production hikes in May, June and July, despite the extra supply weighing on crude prices. The change came after some members, such as Kazakhstan, produced way over their targets, angering other members that were sticking more closely to agreed cuts. Opec and its allies including Russia, together known as Opec+, are also seeking to win back market share during the period of cuts when rival producers such as the United States boosted production. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Opec+ projects rising global demand, especially in the summer, suggesting the group may continue with big output hikes. The group of eight, which includes Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Oman and Algeria, will meet on July 6. Analysts at Energy Aspects and Helima Croft at RBC Capital Markets expect an August hike of 411,000 bpd. "We do think the group is most likely to still go ahead with the August accelerated unwinding," said Richard Bronze, head of geopolitics at Energy Aspects. Two sources familiar with Opec+ discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity said the group may discuss a more than 411,000 bpd increase for August, although it was not clear that all members supported such a move. One complicating factor for the talks is the potential for more supply from Iran after the Israel-Iran ceasefire. US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the US had not given up its maximum pressure on Iran, but signalled a potential easing in enforcement to help the country rebuild. Oil hit a five-month high above $81 on June 23 after the US attacked Iran's nuclear facilities, only to fall back to $68 on Friday as the Israel-Iran ceasefire reduced tensions and supply risks. In April it fell to a four-year low below $60 after Opec+ said it was tripling its output hike in May and as Trump's tariffs raised concerns about global economic weakness. Opec+ pumps about half of the world's oil. As of their decision for July output, the Opec+ eight have made or announced production increases totalling 1.37 million bpd, or 62% of the 2.2 million bpd cut they are unwinding. The UAE is also increasing output by 300,000 bpd, bringing the total hike to 2.5 million bpd. — Reuters
