logo
From ‘Evacuate Tehran' to ‘Two Weeks': Behind Trump's Shift on Iran

From ‘Evacuate Tehran' to ‘Two Weeks': Behind Trump's Shift on Iran

Yomiuri Shimbun21-06-2025

Four days after President Donald Trump abruptly left a summit of global leaders in Canada, calling on civilians to 'evacuate Tehran' and stoking global talk of war, the president on Friday said he still wanted more time to decide.
Trump said he was waiting to see 'whether or not people come to their senses.' He also would not commit to calling for a ceasefire as negotiations continue. Speaking to reporters as he headed to his New Jersey golf club for a fundraiser for his super PAC, the president reiterated the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program but said he was 'not going to talk about' what a hypothetical U.S. response would look like.
Indeed, besides a brief gaggle after exiting Air Force One, Trump spent much of the day Friday trying to shift public attention to anything but Iran. He and his White House team posted on social media about the need to pass his One Big Beautiful Bill. Trump called for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election, posted repeatedly about the charges that the Justice Department under President Joe Biden had brought against him and wrote that he expected a federal settlement with Harvard University soon.
In recent days, a relentless battle for Trump's ear has swirled around the president. As he often does, Trump has picked up the phone for – and received advice from – prominent voices pushing opposing views, according to people with knowledge of his conversations who, like others in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president's process.
The advice – some solicited, others not – from prominent donors, right-wing media figures and elected officials played on Trump's own conflicting impulses on Iran. On the one side, Trump resolutely has stuck to his long-held belief that Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon. On the other, he has tried to avoid war – an approach that is a major element of his political movement.
On Thursday, Trump responded as he often has when faced with difficult options: He bought himself time, declaring that he would wait up to two weeks to make a decision.
So far, those cautioning the president to avoid authorizing a strike – and holding out for diplomatic negotiations – appear to be breaking through.
On Thursday, Trump had lunch with Stephen K. Bannon, his former adviser who remains a leading voice among the hard-line MAGA wing of the Republican Party. Bannon arrived at the White House after skipping the 11 a.m. hour of his two-hour morning show, 'War Room.' He opened the first hour by decrying the faux 'urgency' that pro-Israel hawks were pressing upon Trump.
Bannon and Jack Posobiec, a right-wing influencer who joined 'War Room' on Thursday morning, likened those speaking to Trump and advocating for a U.S. attack on Iran to used car salesmen, who make an 'upsell' by telling buyers that they only have limited time to decide. Bannon has been excoriating Rupert Murdoch and the hosts on his Fox network, accusing them of fomenting war talk.
Shortly after Trump's lunch with Bannon drew to a close, press secretary Karoline Leavitt stepped onto the podium in the White House press briefing room to read a statement she said was 'directly from the president.' The message was that Trump was going to let negotiations play out longer.
'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' Trump instructed Leavitt to read.
The statement had already been in the works before the lunch with Bannon, according to a person with knowledge of the day's events. But Trump's meeting with Bannon at the White House was notable, at a time when the former adviser has been particularly outspoken as a leader of the MAGA movement's anti-intervention faction.
A day earlier, Charlie Kirk, the influential right-wing commentator and another skeptic about an attack, had also visited Trump at the White House, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting, which has not been previously reported or publicly acknowledged by Kirk.
The 31-year-old activist has emphasized to his millions of followers that he trusts Trump's instincts, while insisting that getting involved in fighting against Iran could lead to a war that is much more drawn out than the U.S. intends.
Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that 'President Trump has never wavered in his stance that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon and repeated that promise to the American people during and after his successful campaign. The President is a great foreign policy mind who listens to many perspectives, but ultimately makes the decisions he feels are best for the country.'
The drumbeat of MAGA opposition to the U.S. joining Israel in its conflict with Iran stands in contrast to the chorus of hawkish Republicans urging Trump to strike and even seek regime change.
That opposition has been complemented over the past two days by European efforts to negotiate with Iran.
A Friday meeting in Geneva of the top diplomats of Iran, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union ended with no breakthrough, with the Europeans pressing Iran to agree to limits on its nuclear program and the Iranian delegation saying it would not negotiate until Israel stops its strikes. They agreed to keep talking.
Referring to the meeting in Geneva, a White House official told The Washington Post on Friday that the president 'supports diplomatic efforts from our allies that could bring Iran closer to taking his deal.'
Trump had a more downbeat assessment. When asked how effective the European talks were, he told reporters on the New Jersey tarmac that 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us.'
'Europe is not going to be able to help on this one,' he said.
Trump also said for the second time this week that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was 'wrong' in her assessment in the spring that there was no evidence Iran was building a nuclear weapon.
His position on Friday, however, still revealed interest in letting the diplomatic process play out, whether it's with Europe or the United States, and Trump reiterated that U.S. officials have 'been speaking with Iran.'
Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, did not travel to Geneva for the talks, Leavitt told The Post, but has remained in 'correspondence' with Iranian officials.
That willingness to continue talks stood in contrast to the sense of urgency Trump had telegraphed at the start of the week.
On Monday night, as the president prepared to leave the Group of Seven summit in Canada to return to the White House earlier than planned, pro-intervention voices were pushing the president to seize the moment. They advised him to not only take out Iran's nuclear facilities but also its government.
Trump, meanwhile, posted on social media instructing people to 'evacuate Tehran,' and he told reporters on Air Force One that he wanted to see a 'real end' to the problem.
That night, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show and called for Trump to 'be all in' to help Israel take on Iran, asking, 'Wouldn't the world be better off if the Ayatollahs went away and were replaced by something better? Wouldn't Iran be better off?'
A day earlier on the same network, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said it would be in the U.S.'s interest to 'see regime change' in Iran.
Trump arrived back in Washington near 5 a.m. Tuesday. Later in the day, he met with advisers and reviewed options for an attack. That evening, he told aides that he was okay with the potential attack plans he had reviewed but that he was holding off on giving final approval to see if Iran would budge.
By Wednesday, Trump expressed annoyance as he was asked by reporters about his thinking on Iran, mocking one such question by suggesting he should tell reporters when he would be bombing Iran so they could be there to watch.
He offered glimpses into his thinking throughout the day, however, telling The Post he had issued the 'ultimate ultimatum' to Iran, but conceding that he had not yet made up his mind whether to strike.
On Wednesday afternoon, he held another meeting with advisers in the White House Situation Room.
By Thursday, however, the focus had shifted to attempts at negotiations with Iran. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy met with Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington to coordinate ahead of Lammy's participation in Friday's talks in Geneva.
And in a call Thursday evening between Rubio and France's minister for Europe and foreign affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, the two men discussed the Europeans' planned approach and agreed to follow up after the Friday meeting to continue coordinating on negotiations, according to a French diplomat.
As he stood on the tarmac of Morristown Municipal Airport on Friday, Trump told reporters he wasn't sure how long he would allow the negotiations to continue with Iran.
'We're going to see what that period of time is, but I'm giving them a period of time,' Trump said. 'And I would say two weeks would be the maximum.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Japan tariff negotiator in Washington holds talks twice with Lutnick
Japan tariff negotiator in Washington holds talks twice with Lutnick

Kyodo News

timean hour ago

  • Kyodo News

Japan tariff negotiator in Washington holds talks twice with Lutnick

KYODO NEWS - 1 hour ago - 12:39 | All, Japan, World Japan's top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, spoke with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick by phone twice on Saturday, an official said, as they try to iron out some of the most difficult issues in pursuit of a deal that will be beneficial to both countries. Akazawa, who has extended his stay in Washington, spoke to Lutnick for about 15 minutes in the morning and about 20 minutes in the evening, the Japanese government said, adding Tokyo will continue to work "strenuously" with Washington toward an agreement. Akazawa's calls with Lutnick came a day after they held a meeting that lasted about an hour, with sharp differences apparently remaining over U.S. President Donald Trump's hefty tariffs on foreign-made cars and auto parts. In the ongoing negotiations, Japan has placed top priority on mitigating the impact of the Trump administration's increase in April of the tariff on imported automobiles to 27.5 percent from 2.5 percent. Trump and his trade team have shown no signs of scrapping or lowering such sector-based tariffs, including on steel and aluminum, that the president has imposed on national security grounds. Akazawa arrived in Washington on Thursday for his seventh round of ministerial meetings on tariffs with U.S. Cabinet members. Akazawa, Japan's minister for economic revitalization, was initially due to leave for Tokyo on Saturday, but he extended his visit to explore a separate meeting with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The official said it remains unclear how long Akazawa will stay in the U.S. capital. Related coverage: Japan wrestling with U.S. tariff talks as July deadline looms Trump could extend 90-day tariff pause in July, White House says Japan reiterates that higher U.S. auto tariffs are unacceptable

Elon Musk renews his criticism of Trump's big bill as Senate Republicans scramble to pass it
Elon Musk renews his criticism of Trump's big bill as Senate Republicans scramble to pass it

Japan Today

time2 hours ago

  • Japan Today

Elon Musk renews his criticism of Trump's big bill as Senate Republicans scramble to pass it

FILE - Elon Musk attends a news conference with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House, May 30, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) By ALI SWENSON Elon Musk on Saturday doubled down on his distaste for President Donald Trump's sprawling tax and spending cuts bill, arguing the legislation that Republican senators are scrambling to pass would kill jobs and bog down burgeoning industries. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,' Musk wrote on X on Saturday ahead of a procedural Senate vote to open debate on the nearly 1,000-page bill. 'It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' The Tesla and SpaceX CEO, whose birthday is also Saturday, later posted that the bill would be 'political suicide for the Republican Party.' The criticisms reopen a recent fiery conflict between the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency and the administration he recently left. They also represent yet another headache for Republican Senate leaders who have spent the weekend working overtime to get the legislation through their chamber so it can pass by Trump's Fourth of July deadline. Musk has previously made his opinions about Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' clear. Days after he left the federal government last month with a laudatory celebration in the Oval Office, he blasted the bill as 'pork-filled' and a 'disgusting abomination." 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,' he wrote on X earlier this month. In another post, the wealthy GOP donor who had recently forecasted that he'd step back from political donations threatened to fire lawmakers who 'betrayed the American people.' When Trump clapped back to say he was disappointed with Musk, back-and-forth fighting erupted and quickly escalated. Musk suggested without evidence that Trump, who spent the first part of the year as one of his closest allies, was mentioned in files related to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein. Musk ultimately tried to make nice with the administration, saying he regretted some of his posts that 'went too far.' Trump responded in kind in an interview with The New York Post, saying, 'Things like that happen. I don't blame him for anything.' It's unclear how Musk's latest broadsides will influence the fragile peace he and the president had enjoyed in recent weeks. The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Musk has spent recent weeks focused on his businesses, and his political influence has waned since he left the administration. Still, the wealthy businessman poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump's campaign in 2024, demonstrating the impact his money can have if he's passionate enough about an issue or candidate to restart his political spending. Though he was silent on Musk, Trump laid on pressure and lashed out strongly at Republican holdouts in the Senate as lawmakers spent hours taking a procedural vote during a rare Saturday evening session. He accused Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina of seeking publicity with his no vote and threatened to campaign against the senator's reelection. The legislation narrowly cleared its test vote in the Senate late Saturday evening, allowing senators to begin debate. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Trump Says He Will Move Aggressively to Undo Nationwide Blocks on His Agenda
Trump Says He Will Move Aggressively to Undo Nationwide Blocks on His Agenda

Yomiuri Shimbun

time3 hours ago

  • Yomiuri Shimbun

Trump Says He Will Move Aggressively to Undo Nationwide Blocks on His Agenda

An emboldened Trump administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the president's top priorities, from immigration to education, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the U.S. DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said, detailing efforts to implement plans President Donald Trump announced Friday. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' Trump said at a news conference, during which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Trump's second term – even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organizations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realize they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise skeptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realize,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and – in my view – unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store