Trump issues two-week ultimatum to Iran as Mideast conflict escalates

US President Donald Trump has given Iran a 'maximum' of two weeks to defuse mounting tensions or face potential American air strikes — a warning that comes as Israel escalates its military campaign against Tehran. The president's remarks, made on June 13, reflect a hardening US posture in the face of growing conflict in the Middle East, according to a report by AFP.
Israel has claimed its ongoing offensive has already delayed Iran's nuclear ambitions by up to three years. Explosions rang out across Tehran again with Israeli strikes targeting what it calls nuclear and military facilities, though Iranian authorities say residential areas have also been hit.
Tehran remains under continued attack
The usually crowded markets of Tehran were silent, many shuttered, as fear spread alongside falling debris. Since launching its offensive on June 13, Israel has fired hundreds of missiles and drones into Iran, saying the attacks are necessary to prevent Tehran's nuclear programme.
Iranian officials report at least 224 deaths, including military commanders, scientists and civilians. Israel, in turn, says Iran has launched over 450 missiles and 400 drones, with the most recent barrage injuring 19 people in Haifa.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar told Bild newspaper that 'we already delayed for at least two or three years the possibility for them to have a nuclear bomb,' adding that the week-long assault would continue: 'We will do everything that we can to remove this threat.'
Talks stall, threats grow
Trump showed little patience for European diplomacy, dismissing recent mediation efforts led by Britain, France, and Germany in Geneva. The European trio had urged Iran's top negotiator Abbas Araghchi to resume talks with the US despite the ongoing strikes.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot stated, 'We invited the Iranian minister to consider negotiations with all sides, including the United States, without awaiting the cessation of strikes, which we also hope for.'
Trump, too, was unapologetic. 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us,' he said, adding he's unlikely to ask Israel to pause its assault to get Iran back to the table.
"If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do," he said.
Any potential US military involvement would likely rely on specialised bunker-busting bombs to strike Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant in Fordo- a capability no other military currently matches.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

India Today

40 minutes ago

• India Today

"Criticising Israel is not always antisemitism" says Dr Shmuel Lederman, an Israeli genocide scholar

Dr Shmuel Lederman, a prominent Israeli genocide scholar, has publicly declared that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide—a striking departure from academic caution that reflects a growing shift among experts studying mass atrocities. The Tipping PointLederman's position evolved throughout 2024 as destruction in Gaza mounted. "The accumulated effect of what Israel has been doing in Gaza was basically genocide in terms of the harm done to the Gazans as a group," he Initially hesitant to apply the genocide label, his assessment changed dramatically: "Until mid-2024 it was somewhat possible not to say that what Israel is doing is genocide, but over time, Gaza was simply being destroyed." By year's end, "the continued destruction—of hospitals, schools, and cultural sites—was genocide."Challenging Legal DefinitionsLederman argues that the legal definition of genocide has become an obstacle to prevention. "Genocide scholars for a long time have been engaged in a discourse that is critical of the legal definition because it's very narrow and originated partly in the political interests of the states that formulated it."The 1948 Genocide Convention requires proof of specific intent to destroy a group. Lederman contends: "Once you have this kind of destruction of a group, it should be called genocide—regardless of intent." More troubling, he suggests: "The legal definition of genocide actually serves to block us from preventing genocide when it actually takes place—like in the case of Israel and Gaza."advertisementConfronting Antisemitism AccusationsAs an Israeli Jew criticising his own country, Lederman faces unique challenges. "We need to distinguish very sharply between criticism—however harsh—of Israel, and anti-Semitism," he emphasises. "Anti-Semitism is about certain prejudices, stereotypes, generalisation, demonisation of Jews—not criticism of a sovereign state."He notes his identity provides some protection: "Me being an Israeli Jew, it's harder to criticise me as anti-Semitic... there's a certain privilege." However, he warns: "Very often, calling people anti-Semitic is simply a way of silencing them because they criticise Israel."Societal ComplicityLederman's critique extends beyond government policy to Israeli society itself. "Much of Israeli society either participated in it actively or gave it legitimacy," he observes. Even among government critics, "the majority of Israeli politicians criticising Netanyahu are not doing so on moral grounds—they're talking about hostages or tactical failures."Most concerning is the impact on Israeli youth: "The dehumanisation and demonisation of Palestinians has been ongoing for a long time in Israel—especially when it comes to Gaza." He warns: "For many young people, mocking the suffering in Gaza is almost a form of entertainment, revenge."International InactionLederman doesn't limit criticism to Israel. "Without American support, Israel could not have done what it did," he states bluntly. Regarding international justice mechanisms, he's pessimistic: "It's very likely that the ICJ would conclude there's no proof that Israel intended to destroy the group—because of the very high legal bar."As a genocide scholar breaking ranks with more cautious colleagues, Lederman represents a growing voice calling for fundamental changes in how mass atrocities are recognised and Watch

India Today

40 minutes ago

• India Today

How Trump targeted Harvard's foreign students and what court says now

Harvard University, known globally for its academic excellence and diverse student body, has found itself at the center of a political storm. Former U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration have repeatedly tried to restrict the university's ability to host international students — a move that directly challenges Harvard's global identity. Now, recent court rulings have provided temporary relief, but the situation remains SECURITY 'S ATTEMPT TO CUT HARVARD INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PROGRAMMEOne of the major actions came from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which tried to revoke Harvard's certification to host international students under the Student Exchange and Visitor Program. This program allows institutions to issue key visa documents (like the F-1 student visa), and without it, Harvard wouldn't be able to enroll students from responded by suing the government, claiming that DHS didn't follow proper procedures. In May, a federal judge temporarily blocked DHS's action. Then, in a more recent ruling, the judge issued a preliminary injunction, halting the move until the legal case is fully resolved — which could take months or longer. While the ruling is a win for Harvard, the judge noted that DHS still has the right to evaluate Harvard's status through regular procedures. For now, the university remains certified, but the review ENTRY BAN FOR INCOMING HARVARD STUDENTSadvertisementIn a separate action, Trump issued a presidential proclamation to stop new international students from entering the U.S. if they planned to attend Harvard. The administration argued that allowing these students in was not in the country's quickly challenged this in court, arguing that targeting students bound for one specific school didn't meet the legal standard of banning a "class of aliens." The same judge stepped in again to pause this entry ban — with no end date set yet. Harvard is now waiting for the judge to make a longer-term decision on this linked his efforts to concerns about antisemitism on Harvard's campus, especially during pro-Palestinian protests. But Harvard's leadership has insisted they're already working to address these issues and won't bow to political VISA SCRUTINY AND DISCRIMINATION CONCERNSIn another move, the Trump administration ordered US embassies and consulates to inspect the social media accounts of anyone applying for a visa to study or work at Harvard. The idea was to screen for content that could be seen as anti-American or after, the State Department expanded this to include all student visa applicants across the country, not just those going to Harvard. Visa applicants were told to make their social media accounts public, raising concerns about privacy and were also told to give priority to schools where international students make up less than 15% of the student body. Since Harvard and other Ivy League schools have higher percentages of foreign students, this effectively places them at a IT MATTERS?International students are a major part of Harvard's community — making up about 26% of the total student population. In certain programs, like public policy, business, and law, that number is even say the Trump administration's actions are part of a broader effort to pressure elite universities into changing campus policies related to protests, admissions, and academic hiring. Supporters argue that the government is simply holding institutions accountable. Either way, Harvard believes it's being unfairly targeted, and the courts are now playing a key role in deciding what comes next.(With AP inputs)Tune InMust Watch

India.com

43 minutes ago

• India.com

Iran Israel war: Who are favouring Israel... which countries are supporting Iran... Know details here

Iran Israel war: Who are s favouring Israel... which countries are supporting Iran... Know details here Iran-Israel War: A fierce war has been going on between Iran and Israel for the last several days, hundreds of people have lost their lives in this war, many military bases have been completely destroyed. Apart from this, displacement has also been seen on a large scale. Meanwhile, the question is which countries are supporting Iran, and which countries are standing with Israel at this time? Which countries are with Iran? Iran's biggest dilemma at this time is that many countries are supporting it, but it is not necessary that they will come forward to help it when needed. The biggest example of this is many Muslim countries that are strongly opposing Israel's attack, but it seems difficult to say whether they will jump into the battlefield if needed. Among the Muslim countries, countries like Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq are seen standing with Iran. A big name in this is Pakistan , which is a nuclear-rich country. Pakistan is currently trying its best to get 21 Muslim countries to stand with Iran by showing solidarity. The big thing is that at this time countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Turkey, Somalia, Libya and Algeria have condemned the Israeli attack. Who are supporting Israel Among these nations are prominent players such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Norway, Austria, Germany, India, Canada, Poland, Spain, and even the European Union as a collective entity. The majority of these countries have affirmed their backing of Israel's legitimate right to self-defense, particularly in the face of challenges presented by groups like Hamas.