US joins Israel against Iran; Tehran says Trump ‘betrayed' diplomacy

Jun 22, 2025 07:16 PM IST
The US military joined Israel in its bombing campaign against Iran, striking three Iranian nuclear facilities early on Sunday, a move that many thought still had a week to go. US President Donald Trump warned after the US strikes that if Iran chose to retaliate then it will be met with a "greater force" than Sunday's attack. (AFP/Reuters)
The US used B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-buster bombs to attack the three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Following the strikes on Iran, US President Donald Trump urged Iran to "agree to end this war". Follow Iran Israel war live updates
Trump noted that any retaliation from Iran against the US will "be met with force far greater than what was witnessed" on Sunday. Israel-Iran conflict & US strikes | Top points US has betrayed diplomacy: Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran 'strongly condemns' the US attacks on its nuclear sites as a "violation of international law". He held Washington to be "responsible" for the consequences of its act of aggression. Araghchi added that US President Donald Trump did not just betray Iran but "deceived his own nation". The Iranian foreign minister said the US "betrayed diplomacy and negotiations", adding that it is irrelevant to ask Tehran to return to diplomacy. According to him, Washington only understands the language of threat and force. Araghchi affirmed that the US crossed a "very big red line" by attacking Iranian nuclear sites.
ALSO READ | US B-2 bombers flew 37 hours non-stop, refueling mid-air to hit Iran nuclear sites US strikes in coordination with Israeli army: The American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were carried out 'in coordination' with the Israeli military, said the army's spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin, adding that they were still assessing damage at the nuclear sites. Iran diplomat to meet Putin on Monday: Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that he will travel to Moscow later on Sunday and will hold "serious considerations" with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'We enjoy a strategic partnership and we always consult with each other and coordinate our positions,' he said about Iran-Russia ties. Moscow expressed strong condemnation of the US bombing in Iran, calling the attacks "irresponsible" and a "gross violation of international law". India's PM Modi expresses 'deep concern': Prime Minister Narendra Modi dialled Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian on Sunday and expressed 'deep concern' over the escalating tensions in the Middle East region. In a post on X, PM Modi said he reiterated India's call for "immediate de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward and for early restoration of regional peace, security and stability". US joined attacks after Israel's 'incompetence': Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian said that the American strikes on Iran's nuclear sites show that the US was the "main driver" behind the Israeli strikes. He added that Washington joined Israel's bombing campaign after witnessing the country's "incompetence".
ALSO READ | Donald Trump gave Iran two weeks, struck in two days. Here's why the US President didn't wait Iran says IAEA paved way to aggression: Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its chief, Rafael Grossi, "paved the way to this aggression" of US strikes on Iran. He also called on the IAEA board of governors to condemn the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran mulls closure of Strait of Hormuz: Amid the escalating tensions with Israel and the additional conflict of US strikes on Iran, foreign minister Abbas Araghchi was asked about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. He responded, saying that "a variety of options are available to Iran". The Strait, located between Iran and Oman, and links the Gulf north of it with the Gulf of Oman to the south, is the passage for around one-fifth of the world's total oil consumption. Britain notified of US strikes in advance: British cabinet minister Jonathan Reynolds told Sky News that the UK, as a key ally, was notified in advance of the US strikes on Iran. He said, "Whilst the British government, the UK, has not been involved in these attacks, we have been making extensive preparations for all eventualities." Reynolds further stated that the government was working on how to take care of British citizens as well as its military bases, personnel, and infrastructure in the Middle East region.
ALSO READ | Satellite images show trail of destruction at Iran's Fordo nuclear site after US strike Israel took down Iran's 2 F-5 fighter jets: Israel said that it took out two of Iran's F-5 fighter jets, adding that it hit the aircraft at the Dezful airport. The F-5s are part of Iran's ageing fleet of fighter jets. Previously, Israel hit F-14 Tomcats flown by the Iranian military in the war. However, Iran has not acknowledged the losses of aircraft or other material in the war so far. Iran fires biggest ballistic missile at Israel: Following the US strikes on its nuclear facilities, Iran said that it fired one of its biggest ballistic missiles targeting Israel. Iranian state TV showed what seemed like previous test-firing footage of the Khorramshahr-4 missile, with an on-screen caption that it was used on Sunday's barrage on Israel. The ballistic missile has the heaviest payload of Iran's fleet. The missile has a 2,000-kilometre range with a 1,500-kilogram warhead.
(With inputs from agencies)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

India.com

16 minutes ago

• India.com

Like US, will China join Iran-Israel war to support Tehran? Is its army capable of...? Will it be a shocker for...

Like US, will China join Iran-Israel war to support Tehran? Is its arm capable of…? Will it be a shocker for… The United States has recently joined the Iran-Israel war and carried out precision attacks on Iran's nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The sudden attacks by America have escalated tensions in the Middle East. The question arising is: Will China, which is the largest trading partner and oil buyer of Iran, support Tehran during this tough time? Does the People's Liberation Army (PLA) have the capability to fight a war 5,000 km away? Let us know how much military power China has: China-Iran Relations China and Iran share a good bilateral relations with each other. Both the countries have a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement (2021), covering energy, trade, infrastructure and military cooperation. Oil trade: Iran supplies about 2 million barrels of oil to China per day. This accounts 15 percent of the Beijing's oil imports. 90 percent of Iran's oil exports go to China via 'dark fleet' tankers to evade Western sanctions. Strategic Partnership: Iran is China's important partner to counter US influence in the Middle East. Military Cooperation: China has supplied missile technology, drone parts, and rocket fuel to Iran. Will China Enters Iran War? China's Military Power- The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), a massive force of 2 million active personnel and 1 million reservists equipped with advanced weaponry, presents a significant military power. However, its ability to effectively project power into the Middle East, a region 5,000 kilometers distant, warrants examination of both its capabilities and constraints. Soldiers: 9.7 lakh active soldiers. Weapons: 7,000 tanks, 35,000 armoured vehicles and 12,000 artillery pieces. Navy (PLAN) Warships: 425 ships, including 3 aircraft carriers (Liaoning, Shandong, Fujian), 72 submarines and 150 warships. Missiles: DF-21D and DF-26 'Carrier Killer' ballistic missiles, which has rage of 1800–4000 km, and can destroy naval targets. Capability: The PLAN has an increasing presence in the Indian Ocean. It has only one overseas military base (Djibouti), which is small and surrounded by Western bases. Air Force (PLAAF) Aircraft: 3,200 aircraft, including 600 stealth J-20 fighter jets, 400 J-16s and 250 bombers (H-6K). Missiles: PL-15 air-to-air missile (200 km range) and CJ-20 cruise missile. Rocket Force (PLARF) Missiles: 2000 ballistic and cruise missiles, including the DF-41 ICBM (12000 km range) and the hypersonic DF-17. Cyber and Space Forces China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) possesses sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities, including the ability to disrupt radar and communication systems. Their space-based assets, comprising approximately 400 satellites, offer surveillance and targeting support. While the PLA can provide indirect support, such as intelligence gathering, its direct combat effectiveness remains limited. Limitation: China has restricted itself from supplying advanced weapons like PL-15 missile to Iran as it increases the risk of global sanctions. Logistical Challenge: The People's Liberation Army (PLA) faces significant logistical hurdles in projecting power over long distances. Its current capabilities for maritime and air transport are insufficient to support military operations 5,000 kilometers from its bases. Online commentary suggests the PLA's effectiveness is limited to coastal regions, making it vulnerable in more distant conflicts. Economic Interests: Oil supplies from Iran is a major source of China's energy security. If Israel and US attack Iran's oil refineries, China's economy could be affected. If China joins the Iran war, a military operation 5,000 km away requires massive naval and air support, which Beijing does not have. Its military is inexperienced in foreign warfare and don't have overseas bases. China's foreign policy prioritizes non-intervention, favouring diplomatic engagement and economic assistance over military involvement in international conflicts. While possessing a formidable military, the People's Liberation Army's capabilities are primarily geared towards regional defence, limiting its potential for distant interventions like those in the Middle East. This, combined with China's non-interventionist stance and concerns about US confrontation, further restricts its propensity for direct military action abroad.

Indian Express

22 minutes ago

• Indian Express

When can US go to war? Here's what its Constitution says

In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More

Time of India

23 minutes ago

• Time of India

'It was a ruse': Inside Trump's war room; how 'Operation Midnight Hammer' against Iran was planned

US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) In a move that marks a dramatic escalation in US-Iran tensions, American President Donald Trump ordered a high-precision military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, authorising the first major US military action on Iranian soil since the fall of the American-backed Shah in 1979. The operation, carried out by a small fleet of US B-2 stealth bombers, was planned under intense secrecy and executed just hours after Trump returned from his New Jersey golf club to the White House. In classic Trump fashion, he announced the strike minutes after it concluded, "Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!. " Photo: Inside Trump's war room - a secretive, surgical attack The White House later released tightly controlled photos from the classified Situation Room, showing Trump, wearing his signature red MAGA hat, flanked by his war cabinet. CIA director John Ratcliffe, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles were present, though national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard was conspicuously missing, amid rumours of internal friction. US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Photos blurred key documents on the table, echoing the Obama-era images of the 2011 Bin Laden raid. But where Obama's photos suggested deliberation and calm, Trump's leaned into theatrics— part documentation, part spectacle, all calculated for impact. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) A strike months in the making, publicly denied until the last hour Though Trump projected uncertainty all week, publicly musing on whether he might "take two weeks" to decide, the internal gears of war were already in motion. By Thursday, he had approved detailed attack plans. By early Saturday morning, seven B-2s were already airborne. "It was a ruse," a senior administration official admitted, according to The Washington Post. Only a tight circle of aides were read in: VP JD Vance, CIA chief Ratcliffe, defense secretary Hegseth, national security envoy Steve Witkoff, and secretary of state Marco Rubio, among others. Some in the broader White House apparatus were in the dark until the bombs had already fallen. The final decision, it seems, was not so much a moment as a mood. Trump's two-week bluff? Trump's claim that he might take "two weeks" to decide on striking Iran was a calculated deception, designed to throw Tehran off balance. Behind the scenes, however, the decision had already been made, and stealth bombers were preparing for takeoff. A senior administration official later admitted the delayed talk was "our attempt to throw the Iranians off guard," though there was 'some truth' to it, according to The Washington Post. The public indecision masked a fast-moving, tightly held operation that unfolded just 36 hours later. Iran's red line: Nuclear enrichment At the heart of the conflict: Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear fuel enrichment program, an issue that has vexed American presidents for decades. In Geneva last week, European diplomats met with Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but the talks stalled. Tehran wouldn't budge unless the bombing stopped. Trump, in turn, wouldn't stop unless Iran surrendered its nuclear future. This time, the ultimatum came with an unmistakable threat: Trump warned Tehran to "immediately evacuate" and told Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that "he could be next." Despite the bombast, Trump never spoke to Iranian officials directly. Instead, Witkoff held backchannel negotiations. Trump's demand: zero enrichment, full dismantlement. Iran's answer: no. Behind the scenes: Friction, fundraisers, and the MAGA war room While B-2s sped across the Atlantic, Trump wasn't in a bunker, he was at a fundraiser. Vice President JD Vance was flying back from California. The air of normalcy masked the imminent shockwave. But inside the Situation Room, the president's loyal cadre assembled. Among them: social media gatekeeper Dan Scavino, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, and even AG Pam Bondi, who hadn't been involved in the planning but was brought in at the eleventh hour. Top US officials in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Outside the government, Trump's populist whisperers, Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, and Jack Posobiec, were kept in the loop to shore up political backing. The strike wasn't just a military message, it was a campaign moment in the making. "He was listening to people across the ideological perspective" of his political base, The Washington Post quoted the senior administration official. "Ultimately, the president felt this is a decision the base should support and get behind, because ultimately, he's preventing a conflict that very well could have happened if the supreme leader instructed Iran to create the nuclear weapon," he added. Global fallout and strategic calculations The strike was timed precisely, coming just days after Israel launched its own offensive against Iran on June 13. By midweek, Israeli air dominance helped tilt US military calculations toward optimism. Ret. Lt. Gen. Charlie "Tuna" Moore put it bluntly: "Although we could have executed our operation unilaterally, without a doubt it was beneficial to the United States to have that as the predicate." Even VP Vance, who had privately raised concerns, ultimately signed off. His Iraq War experience made him cautious, but not obstructionist. "He wanted the tires kicked," one official said." Bunker Busters: The bomb that digs to destroy A calculated gamble In the end, Trump's decision marked a sharp pivot from decades of American hesitation. Every president since Carter has baulked at the idea of a full strike on Iranian territory. Trump just did it. Whether it stabilises or further inflames the region remains to be seen. Rubio has begun briefing European allies post-strike. Iran, for now, is unlikely to let this go unanswered. In Sunday interviews, Vance admitted no one truly knew when Trump made the call, not even him. "I don't know that any of us knew exactly when the president made the decision except for the president himself," he said on "Meet the Press."