Trump approves Iran attack plans, holds off on giving final orders
US President Donald Trump has reportedly approved plans to attack Iran but is holding off on giving final orders on whether or not to strike the country as its conflict with Israel over its rapidly advancing nuclear programme intensifies.
The US president is holding off on giving the go-ahead for the attacks in case Iran decides to back off and surrender to his demands, according to a senior Trump aide who spoke to US media outlet The Wall Street Journal.
Trump has repeatedly called on Iran to unconditionally surrender its and abandon its nuclear programme amid a heated exchange of cross-border missile strikes with Israel.
The conflict, which has entered its seventh day, has claimed the lives of dozens of Israelis and hundreds of Iranians so far.
Asked on Wednesday on whether Washington plans to join Israel in attacking Iran, Trump gave a blunt response saying 'I may do it, I may not do it'. Trump has even suggested that the US assassinating Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not off the table.
The 47th US president claims that Washington knows where Khamenei is hiding but are not interested in killing him 'for now'.
In a recorded speech, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected the US president's calls to surrender, vowing to continue attacks and promising to carry out an intense 'punitive operation' against Israel.
In the early hours of Thursday, Israel's military warned people Thursday to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor.
The warning came in a social media post on X. It included a satellite image of the plant in a red circle like other warnings that preceded strikes.
The Israeli military said Thursday's initial round of airstrikes targeted Tehran and other areas of Iran, without elaborating. It later said Iran fired a new salvo of missiles at Israel and told the public to take shelter.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors in a stunning setback to transgender rights.
The justices' 6-3 decision in a case from Tennessee effectively protects from legal challenges many efforts by President Donald Trump's Republican administration and state governments to roll back protections for transgender people. Another 26 states have laws similar to Tennessee's.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservative majority that the law does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.
'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,' Roberts wrote.
'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best.'
In a dissent for the court's three liberal justices that she summarised aloud in the courtroom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.'
The decision comes amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use.
In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls' sports.
The Republican president also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming medical care for those under age 19 — instead promoting talk therapy only to treat young transgender people.
In addition, the Supreme Court has allowed him to kick transgender service members out of the military, even as court fights continue. The president also signed another order to define the sexes as only male and female.
The president of the American Academy of Paediatrics, Dr. Susan Kressly, said in a statement the organisation is 'unwavering' in its support of gender-affirming care and 'stands with paediatricians and families making health care decisions together and free from political interference.'
Kressly said the Supreme Court's decision 'sets a dangerous precedent for legislative interference in the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship.'
The justices acted a month after the United Kingdom's top court delivered a setback to transgender rights, ruling unanimously that the Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces, like changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counselling services provided only to women.
Five years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. That decision remains unaffected by Wednesday's ruling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AFP
4 hours ago
- AFP
Altered Trump video spreads amid Iran-Israel war
"We need to avoid getting involved in this conflict #trump #maga #israel #iran #middleeast #wwiii," says a June 15, 2025 post sharing the video on Instagram. The clip -- also shared to X, TikTok and YouTube -- claims to show Trump saying the United States should stay out of the conflict between the two arch enemies, which began when Israel targeted Iranian military bases and nuclear sites in a June 13 attack and has seen Iran respond with barrages of missiles and drones. "I think we should skip it," Trump appears to say in the video. "I don't know. I'm just not really feeling it. World War III folks, hard pass." Image Screenshot from Instagram taken June 20, 2025 Referencing nationwide protests against his agenda, Trump supposedly continued: "We've got enough going on stateside. We've got the 'No Kings' riots set to kick off this weekend. 'No Kings.' We like kings, actually, folks. We like one king in particular, quite frankly. The king of kings, our lord and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been working to draw elevated support from Trump, but the Republican US president said June 20 that Iran had a "maximum" of two weeks to avoid possible US air strikes, indicating he could take a decision before the fortnight deadline he set a day earlier. He had spent weeks before the attack pursuing a diplomatic path towards a deal to replace the nuclear deal with Iran that he tore up in his first term in 2018. The video purporting to show him saying the United States "should skip it," meanwhile, is altered. Reverse image searches reveal the footage was lifted from a May 28, 2025 event -- more than two weeks prior to Israel's strikes on Iran (archived here). Former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, who was sworn in at the ceremony as the interim US attorney for the District of Columbia, can be seen standing behind Trump throughout. The video and transcript show the president mentioned Israel's war on the Palestinian militant group Hamas and the US efforts to reach a deal with Iran, but he did not call for the United States to stay out of a conflict between the two Middle Eastern nations (archived here and here). He was asked at one point whether he warned Netanyahu against taking any action that could disrupt his talks with Iran, but he said he was pushing to follow the diplomatic path. The president made no mention of the "No Kings" protests. The manipulated video appears to lift footage from around the 18:36 mark of the May 28 footage, based on Trump's hand movements. In that moment, the president was talking about inflation. The voice cloning detection tool in the Verification Plugin, also known as InVID-WeVerify, found that the audio on the altered version is "very likely AI-generated." Some of the earliest posts sharing the clip included disclaimers saying it was a parody generated by artificial intelligence. AFP has debunked other misinformation about the Iran-Israel war here.
France 24
5 hours ago
- France 24
Trump says two weeks is 'maximum' for Iran decision
Trump added that Iran "doesn't want to talk to Europe," dismissing the chance of success in talks between European powers and Iran in Geneva on resolving the conflict between Israel and Iran. Trump also played down the possibility of asking Israel to halt its attacks, after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran would not resume talks with the United States until Israel relented. "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," Trump told reporters when asked if he could decide to strike Iran before that. He added that the aim was to "see whether or not people come to their senses." Trump had said in a statement on Thursday that he would "make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks" because there was a "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran. Those comments had been widely seen as opening a two-week window for negotiations to end the war between Israel and Iran, with the European powers rushing to talks with Tehran. But his latest remarks indicated that Trump could still make his decision before that if he feels that there has been no progress towards dismantling Iran's nuclear program. Trump dismissed the chances of Europe making a difference, saying the talks between Britain, France, Germany and EU diplomats and Tehran's foreign minister "didn't help." "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump told reporters as he arrived in Morristown, New Jersey. Asked if he would ask Israel to stop its attacks as Iran had asked, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now." "If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens."
France 24
8 hours ago
- France 24
Supreme Court allows US victim suits against Palestinian authorities
The court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in a long-running case involving the jurisdiction of US federal courts to hear lawsuits against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Americans killed or injured in attacks in Israel or the West Bank or their relatives have filed a number of suits seeking damages. In one 2015 case, a jury awarded $655 million in damages and interest to US victims of attacks which took place in the early 2000s. Appeals courts had dismissed the suits on jurisdiction grounds. Congress passed a law in 2019 -- the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) -- that would make the PLO and PA subject to US jurisdiction if they were found to have made payments to the relatives of persons who killed or injured Americans. Two lower courts ruled that the 2019 law was a violation of the due process rights of the Palestinian authorities under the US Constitution but the Supreme Court ruled on Friday to uphold it. "The PSJVTA reasonably ties the assertion of federal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct that involves the United States and implicates sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The PA announced in February that it would end its system of payments to the families of those killed by Israel or held in Israeli prisons, responding to a long-standing request from Washington. In 2018, during his first term as US president, Donald Trump signed into law rules suspending financial assistance to the PA as long as it continued to pay benefits to Palestinians linked to "terrorist" entities, according to the criteria of the Israeli authorities.
