Trump's Two-Week Window for Diplomacy Was a Smoke Screen
Well, he did it. He actually did it.
President Trump insisted for months that he wanted the ultimate deal with Iran, one that would put a definitive end to the country's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. As late as Thursday, he suggested that Iran's leaders would have up to two more weeks to negotiate. But at that point, he had already made up his mind: the United States was going to bomb Iran.
The president privately communicated his decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites after a meeting with national security advisers on Wednesday, two people familiar with his decision told us. His statement Thursday, suggesting a two-week window and 'a substantial chance of negotiation' with Iran, was a feint meant to keep the Iranians off guard, four people familiar with the planning told us. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment Saturday night.)
Trump declared from the White House Saturday that the strikes hours earlier had left Iran's nuclear facilities 'completely and totally obliterated,' and demanded that Iran abandon any remaining nuclear capability. The assault was the culmination of a nearly two-decade effort to contain or end Iran's nuclear program. It thrusts the United States more deeply into a high-stakes confrontation with a country where members of parliament chant 'Death to America' and quite possibly increases the potential for counterattacks and economic disruption.
'There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said, standing with Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The suggestion of a two-week reprieve Trump announced on Thursday came as the U.S. government prepared for a range of scenarios, flying U.S. citizens out of Israel, moving personnel out of American embassies in the Middle East, and dispersing ships and aircraft from bases in the region to prevent damage in any Iranian attack.
The administration must now brace for the possibility of Iranian retaliation, which current and former officials said would most likely be aimed at U.S. bases, personnel or facilities in the Gulf, Iraq, or elsewhere in the region. The attacks could also have commercial repercussions if Tehran moves to attack or block shipping in the waterways off Iran.
The operation was closely coordinated with Israel, now a week into its own highly effective bombing campaign on Iranian nuclear and military sites, a person familiar with the planning told us. After the U.S. strikes concluded, Trump spoke with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long pushed the United States to act.
Trump chose to initiate his air assault after he was impressed by the success of Israel's offensive, which has further eroded Iran's air defense capability, and came to believe that 'a little push from us would make it incredibly successful,' an ally of the president who spoke to him about the decision told us.
U.S. officials said Trump genuinely wanted to strike a nuclear deal with Iran—seven years after he ripped up the agreement reached by former President Barack Obama—but came to an impasse with the Iranians over the issue of the enrichment of uranium. Washington demanded that Tehran give up enrichment entirely, or else submit to strict American and international supervision. Iran refused these conditions. Some officials held out hope that U.S. bombing would change Iran's calculus and force its leaders to negotiate on the full dismantlement of the nuclear program. In the short term, however, they predicted that Iran would resort to asymmetric warfare, deploying cyberattacks and other operations that could potentially draw the United States further into the conflict.
Retired General Joseph Votel, who served as CENTCOM commander during the Obama and first Trump administrations, said the United States would now employ aerial surveillance, mapping, and signals intelligence to assess the damage to Iranian nuclear sites.
'It's not as great as putting your own eyeballs on it,' Votel told us, 'but it's pretty good.'
Trump's announcement of U.S. strikes on Saturday evening came about 90 minutes after the White House told reporters following the president that there would be no more news for the night, and they could go home. European leaders were meeting with an Iranian delegation as recently as Friday, in an effort to further negotiations. It was not clear that the United States told even its closest allies that, all the while, Trump had already made up his mind to strike.
Precisely what persuaded Trump that Iran was close to making a weapon remains mysterious. For years, including when Trump was last in office, the U.S. intelligence community has publicly stated that Iran was not trying to build a nuclear weapon. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reiterated that bottomline conclusion during congressional testimony in March.
But Trump dismissed her statement and the information behind it. 'She's wrong,' Trump told reporters on Friday, days after he had already made the decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran had gathered 'a tremendous amount of material,' he continued, apparently referring to the enriched uranium necessary to create a bomb. Earlier in the week, Trump had said he thought Iran was 'very close to having' weapons.
The U.S. intelligence community also had said Iran was enriching uranium that could potentially be used in a weapon, and was stockpiling highly enriched uranium far in excess of what would be needed for a civilian energy program.
But crucially, U.S. intelligence agencies had long ago determined that Iran's supreme leader had suspended the weapons program in 2003. Enriching nuclear material is just one component of a weapon. A nuclear warhead has to be fitted onto a ballistic missile capable of surviving reentry into earth's atmosphere and landing on its target–not a trivial feat of engineering.
In an apparent attempt to make U.S. intelligence analysis adhere more closely to Trump's own judgments, Gabbard on Friday said that her comments before Congress that Iran was not trying to build a weapon had been deliberately misinterpreted by 'dishonest media.'
'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly,' she said in a post on X. She offered no additional information to explain that conclusion.
In a statement after the U.S. strikes, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, argued that Trump had made his decision 'without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community.'
Trump fervently hoped for a negotiated deal but grew angry at what he perceived was Tehran's reluctance to seriously talk. He was also impressed with the media coverage of Israel's early successes and wanted to be associated with that win, according to two people familiar with the matter. He was convinced that Iran had never been weaker and would not be able to retaliate in a meaningful way, they told us.
'Iran was in trouble,' one said, 'and now was the moment to pounce.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Hundreds protest in The Hague against NATO, days before the Dutch city hosts alliance summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Hundreds of people protested Sunday against NATO and military spending and against a possible conflict with Iran, two days before a summit of the alliance in The Hague that is seeking to increase allies' defense budgets. 'Let's invest in peace and sustainable energy,' Belgian politician Jos d'Haese told the crowd at a park not far from the summit venue. Although billed as a demonstration against NATO and the war in Gaza, protesters were joined by Iranians who held up banners saying 'No Iran War,' the day after the United States launched attacks against three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'We are opposed to war. People want to live a peaceful life,' said 74-year-old Hossein Hamadani, an Iranian who lives in the Netherlands. Look at the environment. 'Things are not good. So why do we spend money on war?' he added. The Netherlands is hosting the annual meeting of the 32-nation alliance starting Tuesday, with leaders scheduled to meet Wednesday. The heads of government want to hammer out an agreement on a hike in defense spending demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. The deal appeared largely done last week, until Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that committing Madrid to spending 5% of its gross domestic product on defense 'would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive .' U.S. allies have ramped up defense spending since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, but almost a third of them still don't meet NATO's current target of at least 2% of their gross domestic product. The summit is being protected by the biggest ever Dutch security operation, code named 'Orange Shield,' involving thousands of police and military personnel, drones, no-fly zones and cybersecurity experts. ___ Associated Press writer Molly Quell in The Hague contributed.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth says ‘Iran has a choice,' US not seeking regime change
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday morning that Iran faces a choice between a negotiated settlement or an escalating conflict with the U.S. after strikes hit three nuclear sites in the country on Saturday. 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon along with Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine. 'And I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites, and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities,' he added. Caine said the damage assessment was ongoing but that all three nuclear sites targeted in the strikes sustained 'severe damage and destruction.' Trump on Saturday said the facilities had been 'obliterated.' Iran signaled little interest in diplomacy in the hours after the strikes, dubbed as Operation Midnight Hammer. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Hegseth said Saturday's strikes were limited in scope, but pointed to President Trump's warning on Truth Social that 'any retaliation by Iran against the United States will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' The Pentagon chief said the operation was 'not and has not been about regime change' in Iran. He said it had set back Iran's nuclear timeline. Caine also provided new details about the operation during Sunday's briefing, which he called the largest B-2 bomber operation in history. He said the U.S. dropped 75 guided weapons on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear enrichment and research sites. This included 14 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, the first operational use of the weapon, and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine, he said. A total of 125 aircraft were involved in the mission. The B-2 bombers involved in the operation flew 37 hours non-stop from their base in Missouri, refueling in the air. Caine said that a group of the bombers had been deployed west over the Pacific Ocean as a decoy. The weapons were dropped in a window from 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time. Trump announced the strike via a Truth Social post about 45 minutes later. The American forces appear to have gone undetected in Iranian airspace. Caine said no shots were fired at American aircraft, nor did Iran's missile defense system notice them. 'Throughout the mission, we retained the element of surprise,' he said. Hegseth said Congress was only notified of the attacks after warplanes had dropped their payload and exited Iranian airspace. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle accused the administration of violating the Constitution, which requires congressional approval before entering foreign wars. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted as the news broke. Massie sponsored a House resolution earlier this week to require Congressional authorization for any strike in Iran. Vice President Vance, a veteran and frequent skeptic of foreign intervention, congratulated the troops and others involved in the strike on Sunday morning. 'I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program,' said in an interview on ABC News.
