Latest news with #TrumpStatements
CNN
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Professor on his ‘fear' about Trump amid conflict between Iran and Israel
Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics Fawaz Gerges analyzes President Donald Trump's statements related to the conflict between Iran and Israel, and explains why he doesn't see a light at the 'end of this horrible war tunnel.'
Fox News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
WH maintains Trump consistent in firm stance on Iran nukes — and shows off receipts
The White House is working to show President Donald Trump's consistent stance against Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, as critics emerge from both sides of the aisle. On Tuesday, the White House's rapid response team released a series of 30 clips on X showing Trump's statements over the years on the dangers of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. In October 2023, just days after Hamas' brutal massacre in Israel, Trump told a crowd at a campaign rally that Iran could not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. "Don't let Iran have nuclear weapons. That's my only thing I have to tell you today. Don't let them have it," Trump said at the Oct. 16, 2023, Iowa rally. Then in January 2024, Trump said, "I just don't want them to have a nuclear weapon, and they weren't going to have one." A few months later, in June 2024, during an appearance on the podcast "All-In," Trump told the hosts that Iran could not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. "The main thing is Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. That was my main thing. The deal was a simple deal. Iran can't have a nuclear. You know, it can't have a missile, it can't have a nuclear missile. It cannot have that nuclear capability," Trump told the podcast hosts. The most recent clip was from May 2025 in which Trump told the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum that "Iran can have a much brighter future — but we'll never allow America and its allies to be threatened with terrorism or a nuclear attack… they cannot have a nuclear weapon." Vice President JD Vance also commented on the controversy regarding Trump's stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Vance defended his boss' Iran position as being focused only on "using the American military to accomplish American people's goals." He also described Trump as someone who "has been amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon." "I have yet to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use. I've yet to see a single good argument for why Iran was justified in violating its non-proliferation obligations. I've yet to see a single good pushback against the IAEA's findings," Vance wrote on X. Although the White House team's clips date back to 2023, there is even earlier evidence that Trump was against Iran having a nuclear weapon. In 2018, during his first term in office, Trump withdrew from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). At the time, Trump called the JCPOA "one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into." The White House release on the U.S. withdrawal from the deal has several references to Trump's opposition to Iran developing a nuclear weapon. At one point it says that "Trump is committed to ensuring Iran has no possible path to a nuclear weapon."
The Herald
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald
Trump's lies rile SA: was Ramaphosa's rebuttal enough?
Political analyst Khaya Sithole sees progress after the meeting but noticed the gaps, saying, 'The response to the white genocide claims was the difficult part because it is not anchored on facts, but what was important about the conversation is that until now we had no idea what formed the basis for Trump's statements and utterances. There were speculations,' he said. 'What was really missing was a very clear denunciation of the genocide conversations by those that Trump takes more seriously than others; those would have been the golfers, John Steenhuisen and, as it turned out, Johann Rupert, but progress was made.' Sanusha Naidu, from the Institute for Global Dialogue, praises Ramaphosa's strategic restraint. 'I think they were as effective as they could be given the context in which these claims were being made and the mindset of the person making the claims. Obviously, what was very difficult to do, was try to get the US president to accept that he could be wrong and that is not what anybody could achieve ... once President Trump is set on an idea and view, he doesn't back down,' she said. 'The SA Presidency, the delegation in particular, the president, handled it very well. He handled it with maturity, it was measured, it was understood what they were going to do.' Business tycoon Rupert was part of the delegation. He told Trump crime in South Africa happened across the board — everyone is affected. 'It was a good playbook, the playbook was very critical because Ramaphosa knew you were never going to convince him [Trump] otherwise ... but you now created a doubt in his mind. President Ramaphosa knows how to play this game; it's the long waiting game and he can frustrate you because you're not getting a reaction out of him,' said Naidu. Human rights lawyer Yasmin Sooka is less optimistic. 'It was quite a shock that we needed three white men to save us, none of whom rebutted the claims of persecution and genocide and it reminded me so much of the late president [FW] De Klerk who never said apartheid was a crime against humanity,' she said. Sooka warns of global repercussions: 'I think we're being set up. Just as much as we've brought a case in the ICJ on genocide, don't be surprised if the American government doesn't file a case with the Israelis accusing South Africa of persecution, which is a crime against humanity, and genocide, because this is the narrative in the face of disinformation and falsehoods.' Sooka believes only Ramaphosa and Cosatu's Zingiswa Losi 'really tried hard to rebut the misinformation'. She cautioned about Trump's focus on EFF leader Julius Malema: 'They might find that the US uses global Magnitsky sanctions or 703C designations, which will mean travel bans for them and their families, so I am not sure if we've turned the tide.' Sooka adds: 'States have an obligation if there is a basis for genocide and a crime against humanity, and so Trump's question to the president is quite loaded when he asks him what he is doing about Malema. It then becomes South Africa's failure to act when it had knowledge of the so-called genocide.'
