World leaders react after Trump says U.S. has bombed 3 nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordo
World leaders reacted to President Donald Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had carried out a "very successful attack" on three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordo."This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR," Trump posted on Truth Social.
Here's how world leaders reacted after the attack.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "Trump's bold decision will change history. Speaking minutes after the attack, Netanyahu said, "President Trump and I often say: 'Peace through strength.' First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, Donald Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength,"
Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Saturday warned that the U.S. strikes on Iran represent a dangerous escalation in an already volatile region, posing a serious threat to global peace and security.
"There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world," Guterres said in a statement as reported by Reuters.
"At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace," he said.
Reactions across the globe are slowly coming in as leaders weigh the impact of the attack. According to Reuters, South Korea's presidential office is set to host an emergency meeting to discuss the attack.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump claims tariffs could 'eliminate' income tax for Americans making under $200,000
Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below. President Donald Trump says tariffs could deliver a financial windfall for everyday Americans — by wiping out their income taxes. 'When tariffs cut in, many people's income taxes will be substantially reduced, maybe even completely eliminated,' Trump declared in a Truth Social post on April 27. 'Focus will be on people making less than $200,000 a year.' That's a bold promise, especially considering that only 14.4% of U.S. households earned more than $200,000 annually in 2023, according to Census Bureau data. In other words, if Trump's vision holds true, the vast majority of Americans would pay no income tax at all. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has an important message for the next wave of American retirees — here's how he says you can best weather the US retirement crisis Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) But don't celebrate just yet. While Trump is optimistic, experts say the math simply doesn't add up. Economists Erica York and Huaqun Li of the Tax Foundation were blunt, explaining in a response on April 28 that 'the individual income tax raises more than 27 times as much revenue as tariffs currently do,' and 'even eliminating income taxes for a subset of taxpayers, such as those earning $200,000 or less, would require significantly higher replacement revenues than tariffs could generate.' They estimate that the tariffs Trump has imposed and scheduled as of April 2025 would generate nearly $167 billion in new federal tax revenue in 2025 — covering less than 25% of the cost of eliminating income taxes for people earning below $200,000. While Trump's proposal faces serious doubts, policy changes aren't the only route to lowering tax bills. Here are two powerful assets that everyday investors can use to their advantage. Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at New York University's Stern School of Business, once said that if you're trying to build wealth, you have 'an obligation to pay as little tax as possible.' His advice? Keep it simple: 'You buy stocks, you never sell them, you borrow against them.' Galloway broke it down with an example: 'You own $100 in Amazon stock. You need money to buy something. Instead of selling the stock, and let's say it's gone up 50% ... You would have to realize a capital gain and pay long-term capital gains [tax] on that $50 gain. No, just borrow against it and let the stock continue to grow.' This strategy allows investors to tap into the value of their portfolios without triggering a taxable event. Because capital gains are only taxed when realized, borrowing against appreciated assets lets investors access cash while deferring taxes. Meanwhile, the investments themselves can continue to grow. And since the interest on the loan is often smaller than the tax bill from a sale, this approach can be a powerful tool for preserving and compounding wealth over time. Of course, not all investors want to pick individual stocks — and you don't have to. Warren Buffett, one of the most successful investors of our time, recommends a much simpler path: buying a cross-section of the American economy. 'In my view, for most people, the best thing to do is own the S&P 500 index,' Buffett has stated, meaning invest in an S&P 500 index fund. This straightforward approach gives investors exposure to the top American companies on the stock market, providing diversified exposure without the need for constant monitoring or active trading. The beauty of this approach is its accessibility — anyone, regardless of wealth, can take advantage of it. Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — Real estate has long been a go-to asset for building wealth — and one of the reasons is the generous tax treatment it receives. When you earn rental income from an investment property, you can claim deductions for a wide range of expenses, such as mortgage interest, property taxes, insurance and ongoing maintenance and repairs. Real estate investors also benefit from depreciation — a tax deduction that recognizes the gradual wear and tear of a property over time. Today, you don't need to be a millionaire or buy property outright to benefit from real estate investing. For example, Homeshares opens the door to the $30-plus trillion U.S. home equity market — a space that was once reserved almost exclusively for institutional investors. With a minimum investment of $25,000, accredited investors can gain direct exposure to hundreds of owner-occupied homes in top U.S. cities through their U.S. Home Equity Fund — without the headaches of buying, owning or managing property. With risk-adjusted target returns ranging from 14% to 17%, this approach provides an effective, hands-off way to invest in owner-occupied residential properties across regional markets. If you're an accredited investor looking for larger returns through commercial real estate, First National Realty Partners (FNRP) could be a better fit with a $50,000 minimum investment requirement. Specializing in grocery-anchored retail, FNRP offers a turnkey solution for investors, allowing them to passively earn distribution income while benefiting from the firm's expertise and deal leadership. FNRP has developed relationships with the nation's largest essential-needs brands, including Kroger, Walmart and Whole Foods, and provides insights into the best properties both on and off-market. And since the investments are necessity-based, they tend to perform well during times of economic volatility and act as a hedge against inflation. You can engage with experts, explore available deals and easily make an allocation, all in one personalized, secure portal. JPMorgan sees gold soaring to $6,000/ounce — use this 1 simple IRA trick to lock in those potential shiny gains (before it's too late) This tiny hot Costco item has skyrocketed 74% in price in under 2 years — but now the retail giant is restricting purchases. Here's how to buy the coveted asset in bulk This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs Millions of Americans now sit on a stunning $35 trillion in home equity — here's 1 new way to invest in responsible US homeowners This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Sign in to access your portfolio
Chicago Tribune
19 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: U.S. bombs fall in Iran
Saturday evening, President Donald Trump announced on social media that the U.S. had dropped 'a full payload of bombs' on Iran's most important nuclear site, Fordow, as well as completing strikes on Natanz and Isfahan. The stunning action, which came sooner than even close observers anticipated and is without obvious precedent, embroiled the U.S., for better or worse, in the middle of the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Saturday June 22 turned out to be a historic day with likely far-reaching consequences for the Middle East. Consider: An American attack unfolded inside Iran. Many Americans were unnerved by the President's action and understandably so, given the likelihood of an Iranian response, as we write yet unknown. What should be made of Trump's action? We would have preferred the President had given more time to diplomacy, always preferable to war. His 'two-week' deadline appears to have been a ruse and we prefer that the President of the United States keep his word. And we would have preferred the involvement of Congress. Our qualms do not mean we believe that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's oppressive and theocratic Iranian regime, which has fought proxy wars by propping up the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Nobody wants that to happen, beginning with Israel, of course, but including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and, well, every nation where rational people dominate public discourse. How close the Iran regime really is to building a nuclear weapon is contested. Those of us with long memories can remember Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear bomb as far back as 1996. More than 20 years ago, Netanyahu was again saying that Iran was very close to building a bomb that could reach the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. All this time, Iran has kept insisting its nuclear program is only for peaceful, civilian purposes. On the other hand, nuclear watchdogs also have consistently raised concerns about the growth of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and Khamenei's regime has not exactly been a model of cooperation. Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, 'is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 percent.' That does not constitute evidence of a plan to build a bomb in and of itself, but the higher the level of enrichment, the closer the uranium gets to 90% weapons grade, and Iran's enrichment level is widely viewed by experts as a significant step closer to weapons grade. For the average American, the truth is not easy to discern even from our own officials. Take U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's testimony to Congress this past March. On the one hand, she said the view of the intelligence community was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' On the other, she also said Iran was suddenly talking a lot more about nuclear weapons. That might sound vague, but it's actually highly significant, given the regime's hatred of Israel and the battles with the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. It's likely that the intra-Iranian discourse has shifted in the light of Israeli aggression. As one of the attendees at the American Nuclear Society's conference in Chicago this past week told us, there likely are those within the Iranian program who are more than interested in building a nuclear bomb to protect the regime, even if the majority are scientists interested only in peaceful, civilian uses and either ambivalent or silently hostile toward Khamenei. The question that does not get enough attention is the balance of power. Some in the latter category, she told us, already have been killed by Israel, much to their colleagues' regret. Some of those in the former category who are still alive thus are most likely newly emboldened. At the time of writing, it was unclear how much Saturday night changed that equation. No doubt there are Iranian voices speaking in favor of a major response. One can only hope other voices are arguing for caution, not least for the people of Iraq who awoke in fear Sunday morning. In terms of realpolitik, of course, Israel most wants regime change in Iran. So does the vast majority of the Iranian diaspora, including some we know in Chicago. So does the vast majority of the Iranian people, given Khamenei's repression of women, his stealing of elections, his meeting of dissent with brutal violence, his funding of terror, his denouncement of opposing voices. And that's only the start of the list. This is not a regime worth defending, and recent progressive attempts to link the situation in Iran with the war in Iraq, ostensibly fought over weapons of mass destruction that did not prove to exist at scale, are illogical. This time around, the question in Iran is more about intent, not the existence or otherwise of weapons. And people's intent can change as circumstances change. What is worth debating is whether the Israeli attacks will make the end of the Khamenei regime more likely. You could argue the events of the last several days are weakening Khamenei. You could also argue that spring does not arrive when the sky is full of bombs and people are fleeing Tehran as fast as humanly possible. So where should you stand? Not with the MAGA isolationists, certainly, who claim that none of this has anything to do with this country, a view widely assumed to be cleaving the MAGA movement in two, which is no bad thing in our view. That's not to say the likes of Tucker Carlson are wrong about the potential costs of a war with Iraq; all wars extract their price and too little stateside attention is being paid in our view to the danger of nuclear contamination, which is rightly front of mind in the Persian Gulf States, even though those states are no fans of the Iranian regime and want it gone. But the horse bolted decades ago when it comes to U.S. involvement in the Middle East. But we also don't recommending standing with those far leftists who view Iran as benign, its hatred of Israel as overblown and who overlook Khamenei's human rights abuses to fit some anti-capitalist narrative. When you see the extremes of American political discourse getting into bed together, that's a great moment to leave the bedroom. What has changed the most, of course, is that the Oct. 7 attacks changed the Israeli mindset vis-a-vis Iran, and that Netanyahu calculated that the Trump administration would be more supportive of the kind of systemic change in the region that Israel now sees as crucial to its security. He was not wrong. Trump, we all know by now, is a born improviser, which can be dangerous in situations like these. Some would argue his application of force was necessary if we want to get Iran to halt its nuclear activities. The other view is that actually dropping some massive bomb deep down into the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo will not be worth the cost. Adding to the complexity, arguably the redundancy, of that question is the reality that Israel was not going to stop, whatever the U.S. did or did not do in its support. One hopeful interpretation is that the U.S. action ends with this move against the nuclear facilities and that the talking now starts again. This weekend, though, there is reason to worry about the Iranian people, most of whom long for a deal wherein Khamenei and his crew hop a plane and set the Iranian people free. In his social media post, Trump said this was the time for peace. May he be good for his word.
Chicago Tribune
19 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Steven Katz: Israel's war against Iran is just
Israel is waging an existential fight for its survival as a Jewish state. And it is winning and fighting well. Now, it's apparent to most reasonable observers that Israel and Iran have been in a state of heightened hostilities since the Iranian-enabled Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. In fact, prior to Israel's escalation early June 13, Iranian-armed, -funded and -directed proxy groups such as Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon have indiscriminately launched thousands of rockets at Israel's population centers — killing and injuring scores of civilian men, women and children. In addition, the Iranian regime directly launched hundreds of ballistic missiles toward Israel in April and October. Even the Iranian leaders have acknowledged that they are at war with Israel and seek its destruction. One must apply the appropriate just war standard 'jus in bello' to determine whether Israel's attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and scientists, ballistic missile sites and military leadership is just. Since June 13, many experts have been debating whether the Israeli strikes were 'preemptive,' which is a normative exception allowing for military action prior to an imminent threat from materializing. In 1967, Israel had intelligence that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel, and Israel preemptively destroyed 90% of Egypt's air force prior to the Six-Day War. Conversely, 'preventative' military action is forbidden as it allows for states to attack other states over remote concerns or potential future threats that could be years or decades away. However, what both standards have in common is that they are used when two countries are not in a state of hostilities. For this reason, these standards are inappropriate to gauge the justness of Israel's actions against Iran. What the world witnessed on June 13 was a continuation of ongoing hostilities between Israel and Iran and its proxies. Whether Iran could assemble a nuclear bomb in weeks or months informed the urgency of the Israeli military strikes but has no bearing on whether the current flare-up is just or unjust. Therefore, the right questions we should ask to determine whether Israel's Operation Rising Lion is just is whether the Israeli military is striking targets that are necessary to achieve its military objectives — to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program; whether the strikes are proportional; whether Israel is targeting people and infrastructure that are not lawful, such as schools, homes and mosques that are not being used for a military purpose; and lastly whether Israel is taking measures to mitigate unintended harm to civilians. All credible reporting demonstrates that Israel is going after only military targets that directly support the Iranian nuclear program and enable the regime's ability to attack Israel. To date, Israel has eliminated six top Iranian generals and nine nuclear scientists, targeted and destroyed a third of Iran's missile launchers, and attacked and degraded critical uranium enrichment facilities such as the ones at Natanz and Isfahan. According to Iranian authorities, at least 224 Iranians have been killed, but like the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health, this figure and its breakdown of civilians and combatants should be taken with a heavy grain of salt. Like Hamas, we should expect this figure to be both inflated and obfuscate combatant and civilian deaths. However, even if we accepted that most of the 224 Iranians killed were civilians, then it is still a comparatively low number given the hundreds of targets the Israeli military has engaged since June 13. For context, the U.S. military authorized up to 10 civilians killed per strike against the Islamic State militant group in Iraq. In addition to the Israeli military demonstrating distinction between military targets and civilians, the military is also taking active measures to protect Iranian civilians from strikes — saying on June 16 on X, 'In the coming hours, the IDF will operate in the area, as it has done in recent days around Tehran, to attack military structures belonging to the Iranian regime.' The account went on to say that 'citizens of Iran, for your safety and security, please evacuate the area.' Now, let's turn to the Iranian regime's grotesque conduct since June 13. Iran has indiscriminately launched approximately 400 ballistic missiles at Israel, zeroing in on population centers in Tel Aviv and Haifa. So far, all the Israelis killed have been civilians, and numerous residential apartment buildings have collapsed or have been declared uninhabitable. It should be no surprise that Iran's conduct and despicable tactics are no different from the terror groups it supports such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. To give Iran some credit, the Iranian military did tell Israelis to vacate the entire country, but this was obviously a threat and not to spare lives during future salvos: 'Warnings for you in the coming days: Leave the occupied territories, because, certainly, they won't be inhabitable in the future!' The Iranian regime would use any means to vacate the Jews from the land of Israel. They have made this point clear in the means and methods of their ballistic missile response. Iran is the aggressor and continues to contravene the laws of war. There is no doubt they would use nuclear weapons against the people of Israel if they had them. For this reason, Israel must stay the course to achieve a lasting, secure and just peace.
