Latest news with #USForeignPolicy
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
US attacks on Iran redraw calculus of use of force for allies and rivals around globe
For US allies and rivals around the world, Donald Trump's strikes on Iran have redrawn the calculus of the White House's readiness to use force in the kind of direct interventions that the president said he would make a thing of the past under his isolationist 'America First' foreign policy. From Russia and China to Europe and across the global south, the president's decision to launch the largest strategic bombing strike in US history indicates a White House that is ready to employ force abroad – but reluctantly and under the extremely temperamental and unpredictable leadership of the president. 'Trump being able to act and being willing to act when he saw an opportunity will definitely give [Vladimir] Putin pause,' said Fiona Hill, a former Trump national security adviser and one of the principal authors of the UK's strategic defence review. While Trump has pulled back from his earlier warnings about potential regime change in Iran, going from tweeting 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' to 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' within 72 hours, he has nonetheless reinforced Russian perceptions of the United States as an unpredictable and aggressive rival that will not unilaterally abandon its ability to use force abroad. 'It has some pretty dire warnings for Putin himself about what could happen at a time of weakness,' Hill said. 'It will just convince Putin even more that no matter what the intent of a US president, the capability to destroy is something that has to be taken seriously.' It also shows a shift in the calculus in Washington DC, where hawks – along with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu – were able to convince Trump that launching a strike on Iran was preferable to pursuing negotiations that had not yet failed. That could have knock-on effects for the war in Ukraine, where Republicans and foreign policy hardliners have grown more vocal about Putin's attacks on cities and the need for a tougher sanctions strategy. Although he hasn't changed his policy on resuming military support to Ukraine, Trump is publicly more exasperated with Putin. When Putin offered Trump to mediate between Israel and Iran, Trump said he responded: 'No, I don't need help with Iran. I need help with you.' In the immediate term, however, the strikes on Iran are unlikely to have an impact on Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I don't see it as having a big impact on the Ukraine war, because although Iran was very helpful at the beginning stages in providing Russia with [Shahed] drones, Russia has now started manufacturing their own version and have actually souped them up,' said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, during a roundtable discussion. More broadly, Trump's attacks could undermine a growing 'axis of resistance' including Russia and China, given the pair's reluctance to come to Iran's aid beyond issuing strong condemnations of the attacks during security discussions under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) being held in China this week. 'It also shows that Russia is not a very valuable friend, because they're not really lifting a finger to help their allies in Iran and returning all the help that they've received,' Boot added. The strike could also have implications for China, which has escalated military pressure around Taiwan in recent months and has been holding 'dress rehearsals' for a forced reunification despite US support for the island, according to testimony from Adm Samuel Paparo, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command. Trump had promised a tough line on China, and many of his top advisers are either China hawks or believe that the US military should reposition its forces and focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia in order to manage China as a 'pacing threat'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Yet his previous hesitancy to use US force abroad could have emboldened Beijing to believe that the US would not come to the direct aid of Taiwan if a military conflict would break out – the one wild card in what would otherwise probably be a lopsided conflict between China and Taiwan. Experts cautioned that the stakes were far different, and the conflicts too far removed, to draw direct conclusions about Trump's readiness to intervene if a conflict broke out between China and Taiwan. Trump's administration appears further embroiled in Middle East diplomacy than it wanted and its pivot to focus on China has been delayed as well. And while some close to the military say the strikes have regained credibility lost after some recent setbacks, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan, others have said that it won't send the same message for military planners in Moscow or Beijing. 'We shouldn't conflate willingness to use force in a very low risk situation with deterring other types of conflicts or using force when it's going to be incredibly costly – which is what it would be if we were to come to the defence of Taiwan,' said Dr Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security during an episode of the Defense & Aerospace Air Power podcast. Around the world, US rivals may use the strikes to reinforce the image of the US as an aggressive power that prefers to use force rather than negotiate – a message that may break through with countries already exhausted with a temperamental White House. 'The fact that it all happened so fast, there wasn't much multilateral involvement or chance for diplomacy, I think, is something Russians can point to as an indication of, you know, imperialism to the global south,' said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, a fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings during a conference call. 'But also in their talking points to United States and western allies, they will definitely make a point of highlighting this as something great powers do, and in a way that normalizes Russia's language on its own [conflicts].
The Independent
a day ago
- Business
- The Independent
Trump's $30B pitch to get Iran back in negotiations after ‘demolition' of nuclear sites: report
President Donald Trump's administration has discussed a plan to lure Iran back to the negotiating table after conducting strikes on its nuclear facilities last weekend, CNN reported. Two sources told CNN administration officials discussed plans for negotiations with Iran. But in exchange, the administration wants zero enrichment of its uranium. Trump's special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and partners in the Gulf on the Friday before Operation Midnight Hammer, wherein the administration conducted strikes at the nuclear facilities in Fordow, Ishfahan and Natanz. Among the potential offers, the administration has discussed investing $20-30 billion in a non-enrichment nuclear program for Iran for energy purposes, CNN reported. The United States would not pay for the program, but rather Arab nations would contribute the money. 'The US is willing to lead these talks,' one Trump administration official told CNN. 'And someone is going to need to pay for the nuclear program to be built, but we will not make that commitment.' The administration has also allowing Iran to access $6 billion sitting in foreign bank accounts that it current cannot access, as well as lifting some foreign sanctions. Two sources said that the Trump administration has also suggested replacing the Fordow facility that US forces hit on Saturday. But it's not clear if Iran couild use the site. 'There are a lot of ideas being thrown around by different people and a lot of them are trying to be creative,' one source told CNN. But another source familiar with the first five rounds of discussions between the United States and Iran said 'I think it is entirely uncertain what will happen here.' Trump said on Wednesday that the United States and Iran would sit down next week. But the spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry said he did not know any talks would take place. Despite this, Trump said 'I don't care if I have an agreement or not' when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. The Trump administration has hoped that the strikes that it conducted could force Iran to accept US conditions and stop taking steps toward obtaining a nuclear weapon. But the Iranian parliament voted on Wednesday to fast-track a proposal to effectively stop cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear oversight agency. The United States had initially planned to conduct a sixth round of negotiations before Israel struck Iran. Ahead of the Trump administration conducting its strikes on Saturday, it notified Iran through intermediaries that the strikes would be limited to notify the regime that strikes would be limited and that the United States would not accept any uranium enrichment. At the same time, the president has been cagey about the potential for a deal. 'I could get a statement that they're not going to go nuclear, we're probably going to ask for that,' Trump said during the NATO summit this week.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
US attacks on Iran redraw calculus of use of force for allies and rivals around globe
For US allies and rivals around the world, Donald Trump's strikes on Iran have redrawn the calculus of the White House's readiness to use force in the kind of direct interventions that the president said he would make a thing of the past under his isolationist 'America First' foreign policy. From Russia and China to Europe and across the global south, the president's decision to launch the largest strategic bombing strike in US history indicates a White House that is ready to employ force abroad – but reluctantly and under the extremely temperamental and unpredictable leadership of the president. 'Trump being able to act and being willing to act when he saw an opportunity will definitely give [Vladimir] Putin pause,' said Fiona Hill, a former Trump national security adviser and one of the principal authors of the UK's strategic defence review. While Trump has pulled back from his earlier warnings about potential regime in Iran, going from tweeting 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' to 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' within 72 hours, he has nonetheless reinforced Russian perceptions of the United States as an unpredictable and aggressive rival that will not unilaterally abandon its ability to use force abroad. 'It has some pretty dire warnings for Putin himself about what could happen at a time of weakness,' Hill said. 'It will just convince Putin even more that no matter what the intent of a US president, the capability to destroy is something that has to be taken seriously.' It also shows a shift in the calculus in Washington DC, where hawks – along with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu – were able to convince Trump that launching a strike on Iran was preferable to pursuing negotiations that had not yet failed. That could have knock-on effects for the war in Ukraine, where Republicans and foreign policy hardliners have grown more vocal about Putin's attacks on cities and the need for a tougher sanctions strategy. Although he hasn't changed his policy on resuming military support to Ukraine, Trump has is publicly more exasperated with Putin. When Putin offered Trump to mediate between Israel and Iran, Trump said he responded: 'No, I don't need help with Iran. I need help with you.' In the immediate term, however, the strikes on Iran are unlikely to have an impact on Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I don't see it as having a big impact on the Ukraine war, because although Iran was very helpful at the beginning stages in providing Russia with [Shahed] drones, Russia has now started manufacturing their own version and have actually souped them up,' said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, during a roundtable discussion. More broadly, Trump's attacks could undermine a growing 'axis of resistance' including Russia and China, given the pair's reluctance to come to Iran's aid beyond issuing strong condemnations of the attacks during security discussions under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) being held in China this week. 'It also shows that Russia is not a very valuable friend, because they're not really lifting a finger to help their allies in Iran and returning all the help that they've received,' Boot added. The strike could also have implications for China, which has escalated military pressure around Taiwan in recent months and has been holding 'dress rehearsals' for a forced reunification despite US support for the island, according to testimony from Adm Samuel Paparo, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command. Trump had promised a tough line on China, and many of his top advisers are either China hawks or believe that the US military should reposition its forces and focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia in order to manage China as a 'pacing threat'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Yet his previous hesitance to use US force abroad could have emboldened Beijing to believe that the US would not come to the direct aid of Taiwan if a military conflict would break out – the one wild card in what would otherwise likely be a lopsided conflict between China and Taiwan. Experts cautioned that the stakes are far different, and the conflicts too far removed, in order to draw direct conclusions about Trump's readiness to intervene if a conflict broke out between China and Taiwan. Trump's administration appears further embroiled in Middle East diplomacy than it wanted and its pivot to focus on China has been delayed as well. And while some close to the military say the strikes have regained credibility lost after some recent setbacks, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan, others have said that it won't send the same message for military planners in Moscow or Beijing. 'We shouldn't conflate willingness to use force in a very low risk situation with deterring other types of conflicts or using force when it's going to be incredibly costly – which is what it would be if we were to come to the defence of Taiwan,' said Dr Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security during an episode of the Defense & Aerospace Air Power podcast. Around the world, US rivals may use the strikes to reinforce the image of the US as an aggressive power that prefers to use force rather than negotiate – a message that may break through with countries already exhausted with a temperamental White House. 'The fact that it all happened so fast, there wasn't much multilateral involvement or chance for diplomacy, I think, is something Russians can point to as an indication of, you know, imperialism to the global south,' said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, a fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings during a conference call. 'But also in their talking points to United States and western allies, they will definitely make a point of highlighting this as something great powers do, and in a way that normalizes Russia's language on its own [conflicts].
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Karoline Leavitt's ‘Have To Save Face' Jab Instantly Backfires
Critics mockingly declared the Trump White House an irony-free zone on Thursday following talk of totalitarian regime tactics by press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Leavitt was asked during a briefing to respond to remarks from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who in his first comments since the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and the announcement of a ceasefire with Israel had defiantly declared that Iran would 'never surrender' to the United States. 'Look, we saw the Ayatollah's video, and when you have a totalitarian regime, you have to save face,' Leavitt replied. 'I think any commonsense, open-minded person knows the truth about the precision strikes on Saturday night. They were wildly successful,' she added, despite ongoing debate over the actual claimed effectiveness in destroying Iran's capabilities to build nuclear weapons. The 'totalitarian regime' having to 'save face' line was too ironic for many critics online: Dem Sen. Patty Murray Trolls Trump With Hilariously Brutal Taste Of His Own Medicine Dr. Oz's 'Completely Incoherent' Credit Card Flub Has Critics Saying, What?!? 'Doesn't Take An Einstein': Jasmine Crockett Hits Trump With Sharp Melania Swipe
New York Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump, Iran and the Slow Creep of Presidential Power
War. Did President Trump get America into one? On this episode of 'The Opinions,' the columnists Carlos Lozada, Jamelle Bouie and David French dissect the legality and constitutionality of President Trump's recent strike on Iran, and the gray areas on who has the power to send out American troops. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Carlos Lozada: Sometimes it makes sense just to do the obvious thing, meaning that today, we're going to talk about Iran and the United States. It's the story of the moment. Now, aside from David, who has some experience in the Middle East, I don't know that we'd all claim to be Iran specialists or foreign policy gurus, but we are all interested in the ways that war and national security can intersect with politics at home. So, that's what I hope we can get into today, how the confrontation between Israel and Iran and the United States has played out in Washington on the Hill within Trump's MAGA coalition, which has experienced some stress over the president's decision to get involved. I should note we're taping Wednesday afternoon, Day 2 of a cease-fire, so a lot of things might change by the time folks hear this on Friday. Things might change before we finish recording, but we'll see. That's not going to stop us. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
