Live Updates: Europe Pushes Diplomacy as Trump Delays Iran War Decision

News Analysis
'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,'' Mr. Trump said in a statement on Thursday.
President Trump's sudden announcement that he could take up to two weeks to decide whether to plunge the United States into the heart of the Israel-Iran conflict is being advertised by the White House as giving diplomacy one more chance to work.
But it also opens a host of new military and covert options.
Assuming he makes full use of it, Mr. Trump will now have time to determine whether six days of relentless bombing and killing by Israeli forces — which has taken out one of Iran's two biggest uranium enrichment centers, much of its missile fleet and its most senior officers and nuclear scientists — has changed minds in Tehran.
The deal that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected earlier this month, which would have cut off Iran's main pathway to a bomb by eventually ending enrichment on Iranian soil, may look very different now that one of its largest nuclear centers has been badly damaged and the president is openly considering dropping the world's largest conventional weapon on the second. Or, it may simply harden the Iranians' resolve not to give in.
It is also possible, some experts noted, that Mr. Trump's announcement on Thursday was an effort to deceive the Iranians and get them to let their guard down.
'That could be cover for a decision to strike, immediately,' James G. Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral and the former supreme U.S. commander in Europe, said on CNN. 'Maybe this is a very clever ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency.'
Even if there is no deception involved, by offering one more off-ramp to the Iranians, Mr. Trump will also be bolstering his own military options. Two weeks allows time for a second American aircraft carrier to get into place, giving U.S. forces a better chance to counter the inevitable Iranian retaliation, with whatever part of their missile fleet is still usable. It would give Israel more time to destroy the air defenses around the Fordo enrichment site and other nuclear targets, mitigating the risks to U.S. forces if Mr. Trump ultimately decided to attack.
And it frees Mr. Trump from operating on a battlefield schedule driven by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who has been pressing Mr. Trump to enter the fray, with weaponry Israel does not possess.
In fact, within an hour of the White House release of Mr. Trump's statement that 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' Mr. Netanyahu signaled that he was likely to use the time to try his own attacks on the deeply buried Fordo nuclear plant.
'I established that we will achieve all of our objectives, all of their nuclear facilities,' he said. 'We have the power to do so.'
Image
Smoke north of Tehran after Israeli airstrikes on Monday.
Credit...
Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times
In fact, American and foreign experts say, the Israelis have been preparing military and covert options for years, examining how they might interrupt the massive electrical supply systems that keep the centrifuges buried in an enrichment hall under a mountain. Even the introduction of a surge or a pulse in that electrical flow could destabilize and destroy the delicate machines as they spin at supersonic speeds, like a top spinning out of control.
In recent days, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Israel's destruction of the electric plant above another enrichment center, at Natanz, probably critically damaged the thousands of centrifuges spinning below.
The Israelis have considered what it would take to bomb and seal the tunnel entrances into the facility, trapping workers inside and making it all the more difficult to bring near-bomb-grade fuel into the plant for a final boost that would make it usable in a weapon. That fuel itself, stored in the ancient capital of Isfahan, would also be a target for the Israelis, American officials say.
But the first question is whether the Iranians have the political flexibility to seize on the time period Mr. Trump has opened up. Administration officials say Steve Witkoff, the president's special envoy, has already been in touch in recent days with Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, with whom he has been talking since early April.
'I think the question is, can the Iranians see this as an opportunity to avoid the significant challenges that would come from the destruction of their last remaining facility?' asked Laura Holgate, who served as American ambassador to the I.A.E.A. during the Biden administration. But she said that 'direct surrender is probably not on the table for them,' or 'total abandonment of enrichment capacity either, even now.'
Robert Litwak, a research professor at George Washington University who has written extensively on diplomacy with Iran, said, 'Here is the diplomatic needle both sides need to thread: The U.S. accepts that Iran has a right to enrich uranium, and Iran accepts that it must completely dismantle its nuclear program.'
The conflict between Israel and Iran has consumed the president's week, as he returned early from the Group of 7 meeting in Canada to deal with the war. He spent the early part of the week posting a series of bellicose threats on social media, seeming to lay the groundwork for the United States to join Israel's bombing campaign.
He urged all the residents of Tehran, a city of roughly 10 million people, to evacuate, said the United States had 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' and said American officials knew where Iran's leader was hiding but would not kill him — 'at least not for now.'
Many of the president's allies believed that the United States' entrance into the war was imminent. But on Wednesday, the president said he had not made a final decision about whether to bomb Iran, and he berated Iran for not agreeing to a new deal to limit its nuclear program. Still, he said it was not too late for a diplomatic solution.
'Nothing's too late,' he said.
Mr. Trump's public flirtation with entering the war has sharply divided his base — so much so that Vice President JD Vance wrote a lengthy social media post on Tuesday seeking to downplay concerns that the president was abandoning his commitment to keep America out of overseas conflict.
'I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals,' Mr. Vance wrote.
But some of the president's most prominent allies, including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican from Georgia, Tucker Carlson and Stephen K. Bannon have criticized the prospect of the United States getting involved in another country's war.
'Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA,' Ms. Greene posted on social media.
On the other end of the spectrum, many of Mr. Trump's hawkish allies in the Senate, including the Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, are urging the president to take a more aggressive posture toward Iran.
'Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat,' Mr. Graham said this week on Fox News. 'If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.'
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Chicago Tribune

3 minutes ago

• Chicago Tribune

Appeals court lets President Donald Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. 'The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows,' the court wrote. 'The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.' It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a 'BIG WIN.' He wrote that 'all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.' Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,' Newsom said. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.

Wall Street Journal

11 minutes ago

• Wall Street Journal

Oil Futures Diverge on U.S. Holiday Price Lag, Contract Expiration

Oil prices were mixed in European afternoon trade on Friday, with Brent crude down more than 2% to around $77 a barrel and West Texas Intermediate edging 0.7% higher to $74 a barrel. Brent futures fell after President Trump set a two-week deadline to decide whether the U.S. will strike Iran, easing fears of an imminent military intervention. The international oil benchmark had settled 2.8% higher on Thursday at $78.85, its highest close since January.

Newsweek

12 minutes ago

• Newsweek

US Sends World's Largest Military Aircraft Near Iran's Border

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The United States Air Force has sent the largest military aircraft in the world to Saudi Arabia, close to Iran's border, according to flight tracking data. The C-5m Super Galaxy travelled from Aviano Air Base in Italy to Saudi Arabia on Thursday, according to Flightradar24, which tracks aircraft around the world. At 10:26 p.m. ET on Thursday, the aircraft was recorded approaching Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The C-5m Super Galaxy is a transportation aircraft that has been in service with the U.S. Air Force since 1970. President Donald Trump has been mulling whether to join Israeli strikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, which have been ongoing since last week. The White House announced on Thursday that Trump had set a two-week deadline to decide whether the U.S. would strike Iran. "Based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place in the near future, I will make my decision of whether or not to go within the next two weeks," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. A C-5m Super Galaxy plane in the Czech Republic in 2019. A C-5m Super Galaxy plane in the Czech Republic in 2019. Jaroslav Ozana/AP This is a breaking story. More to follow.