Trump to Decide ‘Within Two Weeks' Whether to Take Action on Iran
President Donald Trump will make a decision within two weeks on whether to strike on Iran, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters during a press briefing on Thursday.
Reading a statement from Trump, Leavitt said, '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.'
[time-brightcove not-tgx='true']
The President's deadline comes amid escalating strikes between Iran and Israel—and as the U.S. considers direct military action against Iran. On Wednesday, when asked if the U.S. was moving closer to striking Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump told reporters, 'I may do it, I may not do it, nobody knows what I'm going to do… I can tell you this. Iran's got a lot of trouble.'
'The United States government maintains this fact that Iran has never been closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon,' Leavitt went on to say. She noted that the President continues to be briefed by his National Security Council and remains in 'constant communication' with the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The attacks between the two countries began last Friday, when Israel launched what it called 'preemptive air strikes' targeting more than a dozen sites in Iran. The Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) says that since Israel's initial missile attack on Iran, 639 people have been killed there and a further 1,329 injured—the organization says that 263 of those killed were civilians and 154 military personnel. In Israel, 24 people have been killed so far by Iranian strikes, with 838 injured.
On Thursday, an Iranian missile strike damaged a hospital in southern Israel, as part of a barrage of strikes Israel said injured 271 people.
Trump's base is divided as he weighs his options, especially given that he campaigned on a pledge of no new wars.
The two-week timeline opens the door for negotiations, but does not negate the possibility of U.S. involvement. 'The president has made it clear he always wants to pursue diplomacy,' Leavitt said. 'But believe me the president is unafraid to use strength if necessary.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
White House Rose Garden Bulldozed as Work Starts Paving It Over
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. Construction has commenced on projects at the White House ordered by President Donald Trump, with the Rose Garden having been bulldozed as work begins to pave it over. Why It Matters Since his return to the White House, Trump has transformed the Oval Office, making some of the most significant changes to the room's appearance in modern presidential history. There have been gold medallions, gold vermeil figurines, gold eagles and gilded Rococo mirrors added. It has also been reported that Trump wishes to build a ballroom in the White House, similar to the one he has at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago. A labor crew works in the White House Rose Garden on June 9, 2025. A labor crew works in the White House Rose Garden on June 9, 2025. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images What To Know On Monday of this week, reporters noticed that work had begun in the Rose Garden. The Associated Press reported that the project will be completed in approximately two months, citing a White House official who was not authorized to comment publicly. This same official said that employees of the National Park Service, which maintains the White House grounds, had started the work. Images show the process of paving over the Rose Garden, first with construction crews digging up the grass, then poles and mud in the garden area. The most recent images show the garden covered in what looks to be gravel. Ongoing construction is seen in the Rose Garden at the White House on June 17, 2025. Ongoing construction is seen in the Rose Garden at the White House on June 17, previously said he would pave over the Rose Garden because the grass is always wet, and it's an inconvenience for women in high heels. The president also recently oversaw the installation of two flagpoles on the front lawns of the White House, both of which measure 30.5 meters (100 feet) in height. The Rose Garden at the White House being paved over on June 17, 2025. The Rose Garden at the White House being paved over on June 17, Rose Garden was established in 1913 by Ellen Wilson, the wife of President Woodrow Wilson. It was later redesigned by President John F. Kennedy to serve as a space for outdoor ceremonies. It has since become a regular venue for various events, including receptions, press briefings, and other occasions. First lady Melania Trump redesigned the garden in 2019, during her husband's first term. The renovations drew backlash at the time and led to a petition asking for the changes to be reversed. What People Are Saying White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, in a statement shared by The New York Times in March: "The White House has not been given any tender, loving care in many decades, so President Trump is taking necessary steps in order to preserve and restore the greatness and glory of 'the People's House.'" What Happens Next It is unclear when construction on the White House Rose Garden will conclude. Plans for a new ballroom have not been revealed yet.
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Can Diplomacy Bring The Iran-Israel Conflict To An End?
TEHRAN, IRAN - JUNE 13: An excavator removes debris from a residential building that was destroyed ... More in today's attack by Israel in Tehran, on June 13, 2025 in Tehran, Iran. Early this morning, Iran was hit by a series of Israeli airstrikes targeting military and nuclear sites, as well as top military officials. (Photo by) Just over twenty years ago I had lunch in a roadside café near Natanz in Iran (on the way back from Isfahan to Tehran). At the time, it was well known that Natanz was a nuclear research site, and a location that was becoming more of a geopolitical focal point given George W Bush's inclusion of Iran in the 'Axis of Evil' (despite large 'Death to America' murals in Tehran, it had offered to assist the US in the war against the Taliban). Up until then, Iran was the host of one of the larger Jewish populations in the world (roughly 80,000 then) and historical ties between Iran and Israel were strong, as I outlined in a note last year entitled 'Persepolis', and I still believe that socially and culturally the populations of Tel Aviv and Northern Tehran have more in common than many would think. This speaks to the potential that Iran owes to its heritage, but that has been smothered by a small, inward looking and harsh theocracy, aided and abetted by the Revolutionary Guard who exert de facto control over the Iranian economy as well as other sectors. They were notoriously responsible for the death of Masha Amini in 2022, and on average the Iranian state has killed 2-3 of its young people every week, something that should really elicit more anger from students across Europe and Asia. What happens to Iran is now an open question. During the week I had the benefit of hosting a call for a group of investors with Ambassador Dennis Ross, the authority on the region from a Western point of view. His sense is that granted Israel views the threat from Iran's nuclear programme as existential (the jawboning of the former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did much to reinforce this), the permanent dismantling of Iran's nuclear program is the de minimus goal of Israel. It is reported that Iran has been reaching out to other countries in the region to signal that it is ready to negotiate, and a negotiation process that is stewarded by Russia for example would help the Iranian regime avoid embarrassment (I recall the advice of Seamus Mallon, a key participant in the Good Friday Accord, who said that a good negotiator makes sure that his opposite number 'can get up with his pants on'). If Iran is ready to offer serious, verifiable concessions, it is possible that this conflict can come to an end, something that may please Donald Trump who has been quicker to associate himself with the success of the Israeli operation than to offer Israel unconditional military support. Indeed, the next few weeks are a test of Trump's mettle and credibility. In reality his two week pause is yet another sign of indecision. A joint US/Israeli strike on the Fordow mountain nuclear centre, near the holy city of Qom, and strikes across the wider Iranian theatre may provoke a counter-reaction by Iran, notably so against the Emirates and Saudi Arabia and might ignite a response from other quarters that have been relatively quiet (Iraq and Yemen for example). There is very energetic communication from the Gulf to Washington that a US strike could have very negative consequences for the region and might lead to a broader, less predictable conflict. The tail-risk for the regime in Iran is a deeper recession, financial crisis and internal political strife, though it is most likely that the succession around Ayatollah Khamenei provides the best opportunity for a political turning point. Most Western observers vastly underestimate how difficult it would be to foment regime change in Iran, as much as that is highly desirable. On a more positive tack, an agreement from Iran that removes the existential risk to Israel might also provide the geopolitical climate to bring an end to hostilities in Gaza, and for a meaningful calm across the region with the potential of an economic recovery. This might well be the catalyst for my 'Fourth Pole' thesis of an increasingly coherent economic zone in the Middle East, whose diplomatic centre is Abu Dhabi, geopolitical and technological power is Israel, and where the populations of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Iran, to name a few, contribute to a growing regional economy. Europe would likely benefit from this, though my sense is that it is increasingly less relevant as a diplomatic power in the Middle East. Emmanuel Macron for instance has lost enormous sway in Israel, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, there are two lessons for Europe to bear in mind relating to Israel's operation in Iran. The first, in parallel to Ukraine's resistance to Russia, is the demonstration that Israel has offered in military strategy and the multifaceted uses of technology. The second lesson is that Israel's action is also illegal and contributes to an increasingly lawless international geopolitical climate. Finally, Russia and China have been discretely critical of Israel, though they will be dismayed at the ease with which Iran's defences have been dismantled, and they should be cognisant of the role that corruption has played here. Losing Iran as a member of their club (the 'Shanghai Cooperation Organisation') would constitute a major blow, but in the short-run their attention will be focused on how America responds to Israel's move. Have a great week ahead, Mike
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Danger Of Trump's Imminent Israeli-Iran War Involvement
As Israeli fighter jets bomb suspected Iranian military facilities and covert assassination campaigns target Iranian military leaders and scientists, the United States finds itself being pulled deeper into a conflict it outwardly aims to avoid. While Washington claims it is not at war with Iran, the facts on the ground indicate that there is U.S. involvement in Iran. American weapons, intelligence systems, and diplomatic cover are directly supporting Israeli military actions—turning what started as an Israeli campaign into a war with clear American involvement. Even more concerning, President Trump has indicated he will decide whether to directly enter the war within two weeks. Meanwhile, a significant amount of American naval support is heading towards the conflict zone. Although Israeli officials present these attacks as defensive responses to an imminent nuclear threat, the parallel to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq is hard to ignore. Back then, as now, secretive intelligence and speculation about weapons of mass destruction form the basis of preemptive war. Similarly, calls for restraint are overshadowed by a chorus of urgency, veiled threats, and regional power struggles. But unlike Iraq, this time the U.S. is not just involved in initiating the war; it is backing a conflict that could engulf the region and potentially entangle America as well. Furthermore, President Trump is even contemplating an attack on the leader of Iran. Although not formalized in a binding treaty, there is a widely respected informal norm urging world leaders to avoid assassinating one another. Ultimately, respect for state sovereignty is at stake. And that principle is increasingly being breached in major global conflicts today. While Israel justifies its strikes on Iran by claiming that Tehran is getting closer to developing nuclear weapons, a narrative echoed in Washington and widely repeated in the Western press, official assessments present a more complicated picture. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), at the start of this conflict Iran was not actively working on a nuclear bomb, and the IAEA had not found conclusive proof of a renewed weapons program. Although Iran's 'breakout time'—the period needed to produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb—has significantly decreased, this does not mean Iran is actually creating and deploying a nuclear weapon. That process requires not only fissile material but also sophisticated warhead design, dependable delivery systems, and rigorous testing—all of which remain unconfirmed in Iran's case. It seems, therefore, that the idea Iran is on the verge of going nuclear is not based on verified intelligence but on political urgency and worst-case assumptions. These fears, whether real or exaggerated, are fueling a military response that could easily escalate into a full-scale regional war and beyond. The irony of this story is hard to overlook. Israel is widely recognised to possess a strong and undeclared nuclear arsenal, estimated at 80 to 90 warheads, with fissile material for several hundred more. These figures come from reputable sources including the Nuclear Threat Initiative and SIPRI. Yet Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is not subject to IAEA inspections, and faces no international sanctions for its nuclear stance. Meanwhile, Iran—while a signatory to the NPT—is persistently scrutinised for enrichment activities still legally permitted under international law, while Israel's nuclear opacity enjoys the full protection of its American ally. Israel's recent campaigns in Gaza have resulted in staggering human costs. The United Nations estimates that more than 35,000 civilians were killed during the latest offensive, with entire neighbourhoods, hospitals, and infrastructure obliterated. Human Rights Watch has documented and daily television news reports on multiple channels from Gaza repeatedly confirm Israeli strikes on non-military targets, raising serious concerns about proportionality and the laws of armed conflict. Now, similar Israeli tactics are being applied elsewhere across borders. In Syria, Lebanon, and increasingly within Iran itself, Israeli strikes are targeting scientific centres, residential areas, and transport hubs. Civilians have been killed in cities like Beirut, Isfahan, and Tehran. What once seemed like a regional containment policy now shows the traits of a broader, irreverent deterrence doctrine—enabled by unconditional U.S. support. To claim that the U.S. is merely a passive observer is both inaccurate and misleading. American-provided munitions, joint military efforts, satellite and signals intelligence, and diplomatic support at the United Nations have all played a vital role in Israel's operational capabilities. This backing occurs despite the lack of clear congressional approval or public debate to clearly define American interests in the conflict. It also happens without any attempt to establish a long-term strategic goal. There is no diplomatic plan. No red lines for escalation have been set. And there is no accountability for what appears to be Israeli overreach. President Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement in 2018—originally intended to delay Iran's weapons capability—marked a turning point. The subsequent 'maximum pressure' campaign failed to restrict Iran and instead caused increased enrichment, regional instability, and now the risk of outright war. It is a failure of both diplomacy and deterrence, yet the same approach is being followed again. Iran has not attacked the United States. Although it funds groups hostile to U.S. allies, this has been its stance for decades and does not justify war under international law or the U.S. Constitution. No resolution from the United Nations authorizes force against Iran. No direct threat has been demonstrated to justify preemptive self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. If the aim is to prevent a nuclear Iran, diplomacy—despite being challenging—is the only feasible option. Bombing Iranian facilities is likely to speed up Tehran's nuclear pursuits rather than stop them. It could also boost support for the most hardline factions of the Iranian regime domestically and might provoke asymmetric retaliation against U.S. interests throughout the Middle East. While the United States escalates its military involvement in the Middle East, it has started to withdraw from another conflict it is both legally and morally obliged to address. In 1994, through the Budapest Memorandum, the United States assured Ukraine's sovereignty in return for Kyiv relinquishing the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal. That commitment was already strained by Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and the initial onset of Russia's hostilities towards Ukraine. Trump did nothing to address this escalating war during his first term from 2017 to 2021. While Trump supporters argue that, unlike Obama, Trump supplied Ukraine with Javelin missiles, the key word is 'supplied.' In reality, he sold them to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the war became existential in 2022 when Moscow launched a full-scale invasion. Now, in 2025, Trump's support for Ukraine is waning. Aid packages are delayed or reduced. Political rhetoric shifts towards 'peace through disengagement.' Ukraine, it appears, has become a bygone cause. In short, the US is willing to bankroll another war against a hypothetical nuclear Iran but hesitant to fully honour a promise to defend a non-nuclear Ukraine, especially since Ukraine chose disarmament. The message to other nations is clear: nuclear restraint leads to American abandonment. The United States does not need to engage in conflict with Iran. Nor should it endorse a deterrence model that depends on regional devastation and global hypocrisy. If Washington aims to preserve its credibility as a world leader, it must uphold world peace everywhere—not selectively, as with U.S. actions in Iran. This requires a renewed commitment to diplomacy with adversaries, enforcing norms among allies, and prioritizing conflicts where its reputation—and honour—are already at stake. Ukraine qualifies as such a conflict. Iran does not.
