Latest news with #foreignpolicy
ABC News
2 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Donald Trump has delayed making a decision on attacking Iran. What's his strategy?
Deal-making? Decisive? Dithering? Or just momentarily deferred? Everyone will take their pick trying to determine why Donald Trump has bought himself time to make the most consequential decision a US president can make — whether to plunge his forces into another foreign conflict of unknown risk and uncertain duration. As ever with Trump pronouncements, there's a little something in this for everyone. "Within the next two weeks" is a timeline vague enough to simultaneously exasperate the Netanyahu government, confound the Iranian leadership, delight nervous allies and bewilder financial markets. On the domestic front, it could prolong the civil skirmish among Republican MAGA (Make America Great Again) forces over whether armed conflict passes as a form of American "greatness" or not these days. Why the US president settled on a timeline of an ill-defined decision-making period of anywhere between one and 14 days is anyone's guess. Make no mistake, leaders and officials in almost every government, not to mention military and foreign policy analysts the world over, are feverishly making their best guesses right now. So here are a few entries to guide this global guessing game. Trump is taking strategic and tactical ambiguity to a new level and has been for days. Earlier this week on the South Lawn of the White House, we probably got the most revealing insight into his mindset when asked by reporters about direct US military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. In any event, he scoffed at publicly telegraphing any decision he may make on bombing missions in Iran so that the world's media could "be there and watch". The obvious conclusion is that advance notice would not be given. This, at least, would be consistent with the approach taken by most commanders in chief — think George W. Bush in Iraq, Obama on killing Osama bin Laden, or more recently, Biden's authorised strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen. Taking the current president at his word, we're not likely to know until after US forces have fired any shots. If they never do, we may be left to deduce ourselves whether this was the result of an active decision Trump took, or a passive one that passed with the moment into the mists of time. The White House has offered very limited reasoning on the significance of the time allocated for extra presidential musing. The clearest explanation for settling on it was offered was by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who's suggested two weeks is the difference between an latent nuclear weapon program and an active one. "Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon. All they need is a decision from the supreme leader to do that," she said. "And it would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon, which would of course pose an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to the United States, and to the entire world." A US deferral carries with it no apparent obligations on Israel or Iran to cease their missile assaults on one other. It does allow time for diplomacy to do its work. According to the Reuters news agency, that work's been quietly going on in the background throughout the week since Israel launched Operation Rising Lion with its attacks on Iran. Quoting diplomatic sources, Reuters has reported that Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi"have spoken several times by phone" during the week. Separately, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is hitting the phones to counterparts from Canberra to Paris, trying to build consensus around a campaign of maximum pressure on the Iranians. Through another channel, the so-called "E3" group of European foreign ministers from Germany, France and the UK are holding their own in-person talks with Araghchi in Geneva to explore a possible nuclear deal. Crucially, any extra time available also allows the Pentagon to ready its plans, forces, weapons, ships, planes and intelligence for potential strikes. Despite his ambiguity, those strikes deliberately and firmly remain as options underpinning the US president's prolonged timeline. Israel's Operation Rising Lion, together with Tehran's ferocious missile response, has already proved costly in lives, injuries and damage inflicted in both countries, but ripples into the broader global economy have so far been minimised. Oil prices are marginally up by about 3 per cent and shipments are still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, regardless of Iranian threats to blockade it if necessary. As they've proven before, ongoing uncertainty about military escalation doesn't mean financial markets will remain calm or rationally in an extended "holding pattern". The White House seems to be alert to the brittleness of oil pricing, with Leavitt giving an assurance that Trump is "paying attention and monitoring that". It's prudent to consider oil price sensitivities because it's via the fuel tank and the family budget that many Americans will decide on the merit or folly of another foreign military venture. The possibility of direct US miliary involvement is tearing at the seams of the MAGA movement which has twice propelled Trump to office on a foreign policy of war avoidance. "America First" is the guiding principle behind MAGA's approach to all things defence and security related. The idea that after only five months in the White House their president might see greatness in the deployment of a "bunker-busting" bomb half a world away in the interests of what they call "neo-con warmongers" is staggeringly incomprehensible to keepers of the flame, like commentator Tucker Carlson and Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. They're pitched against more hawkish pro-Israeli Republican figures including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Texas senator Ted Cruz. Perhaps unintentionally, Cruz exposed the size of the rift within the MAGA clan in a combative on-camera interview with Carlson, revealing that for all his swagger, the Texan knew dangerously little about the foe he would have bombed into nuclear submission — unable to place any figure on simple facts including Iran's population. The internal MAGA fight might cause Trump some political discomfort at home, but he's just guaranteed the combatants can slug it out for a couple more weeks, or longer, until he makes a final decision.
Wall Street Journal
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Iraq's Shadow Over the Iran Debate
The fiery Tucker Carlson interview with Sen. Ted Cruz is the perfect distillation of the split among conservatives on Iran. And that split is all about the unhealed wound of Iraq. Mr. Cruz made his personal case—it seemed to rest on his reading of the Bible—for joining the Israeli action against Iran. Mr. Carlson pushed back. It got pretty personal pretty fast. Mr. Carlson called Mr. Cruz 'a sleazy feline,' Mr. Cruz accused Mr. Carlson of 'reckless rhetoric.' Mr. Cruz compared Mr. Carlson's foreign policy to Jimmy Carter's. Mr. Carlson: 'This is one of the weirdest conversations I've ever had.'
Daily Mail
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
ANDREW NEIL: The deeply personal vendetta driving Trump to deliver the fatal blow against Iran... and Israel's strategy to force his hand
The gun is locked and loaded. His finger is on the trigger. All Donald Trump has to decide now is when to pull it — and destroy Iran 's nuclear weapons facilities, buried deep underground, with giant 'bunker buster' bombs only America is able to deliver. The prospect of yet another Middle East military venture, this time in cahoots with Israel, is causing some dismay in MAGA circles, which has a visceral dislike of foreign entanglements. After all, they elected Trump specifically to avoid another 'forever war'.
Fox News
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Flaring Iran nuclear crisis provides first major test for pivotal Trump trio
A trio of key Trump administration officials — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt — are in the midst of facing their first major foreign policy test in their high-profile admin roles after Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran and President Donald Trump weighs involving the U.S. in the conflict. The trio ascended to their roles with widespread fanfare among many MAGA conservatives, though many critics just months ago questioned if their prior careers prepared them for what was to come. The current flaring tensions with the Islamic Republic could be the final arbiter of which side was correct. "President Trump leads from the front, and he has assembled a highly-qualified, world-class team that has helped him achieve numerous foreign policy accomplishments this term," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told Fox Digital on Wednesday when asked about the trio's test on Iran. "The American people trust the President to make the right decisions that keep them safe, and he has empowered his team to meet the moment and advance his foreign policy goals." Secretary Hegseth was one of Trump's more controversial nominees among critics, as Democrat lawmakers and left-wing pundits slammed Hegseth as unqualified for the job. "This hearing now seems to be a hearing about whether or not women are qualified to serve in combat. And not about whether or not you are qualified to be secretary of defense," Illinois Democrat Sen. Tammy Duckworth said during Hegseth's confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in January. "And let me just say that the American people need a secretary of defense who's ready to lead on day one. You are not that person." "Is Pete Hegseth truly the best we have to offer?" asked Democrat Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member of the committee. Hegseth battled against claims he would lower previous standards for the secretary of Defense and that his vows to strengthen the military could be bluster once he was in the role and juggling oversight of the entire military. "As I've said to many of you in our private meetings, when President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense," he said in his opening statement during his confirmation hearing. "He, like me, wants a Pentagon laser focused on warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and readiness. That's it. That is my job." Hegseth was confirmed to the role after Vice President JD Vance issued a tie-breaking vote when Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Mitch McConnell joined Democrats in voting against the confirmation. Hegseth is an Ivy League graduate and former National Guard officer who was deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay during his military career, which began in 2003. He is also the recipient of a handful of military awards, including two Bronze Stars. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday and was pressed about the Israel–Iran conflict. "They should have made a deal," Hegseth said. "President Trump's word means something — the world understands that," Hegseth said, referring to Trump's repeated pressure on Iran to make a deal with the U.S. on its nuclear program as the conflict spiraled. "And at the Defense Department, our job is to stand ready and prepared with options. And that's precisely what we're doing," Hegseth continued. He did not reveal if the U.S. would assist Israel in the ongoing strikes on Iran, but that the Pentagon is in the midst of preparing options for Trump. Any potential U.S. involvement in the strikes could pull the country into war against Iran. "I may do it, I may not do it," Trump said Wednesday on whether he would order a strike on Iran. "I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do." Hegseth was among high-profile Trump officials who joined Trump in the White House's Situation Room as the president and his team closely monitor the flaring conflict. Director of National Intelligence Gabbard is another Trump official who faced an intense confirmation hearing as critics argued she was unqualified for the role. Gabbard is a former Democrat who served in the U.S. House representing Hawaii from 2013 to 2021, a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and an Iraq war veteran. However, she had never held a formal position within the intelligence community before serving as director of national intelligence. Ahead of her confirmation, Gabbard's critics slammed her as lacking the qualifications for the role, questioning her judgment over a 2017 meeting with then-Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, labeling her as sympathetic toward Russia, and balking at her previous favorable remarks related to former National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. "Those who oppose my nomination imply that I am loyal to something or someone other than God, my own conscience and the Constitution of the United States," she said during her confirmation hearing. "Accusing me of being Trump's puppet, Putin's puppet, Assad's puppet, a guru's puppet, Modi's puppet, not recognizing the absurdity of simultaneously being the puppet of five different puppet masters." She ultimately was confirmed in a 52–48 vote. Gabbard's March testimony before the Senate dismissing concerns Iran was actively building a nuclear weapon is back under the nation's microscope after Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran. Israel's strikes were in direct response to Israeli intelligence showing Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a short span of time. Trump was asked about Gabbard's testimony while traveling back to Washington Monday evening from the G7 summit in Canada, and the president said he did not "care" what Gabbard had to say in previous testimony, arguing he believes Iran is close to building a nuke. "You've always said that you don't believe Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon," a reporter asked Trump while aboard Air Force One on Monday. "But how close do you personally think that they were to getting one?" "Very close," Trump responded. "Because Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon," the reporter continued. Trump shot back, "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one." When Gabbard appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee in March, she delivered a statement on behalf of the intelligence community that included testimony that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. "Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data," Gabbard told the committee on March 26. The intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003," she said. She did add that "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons." "Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorist actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance," she warned. However, as critics picked apart Gabbard's past comments, the White House stressed that Gabbard and Trump are closely aligned on Iran. A White House official told Fox News Digital Tuesday afternoon that Trump and Gabbard are closely aligned and that the distinction being raised between Gabbard's March testimony and Trump's remarks that Iran is "very close" to getting a nuclear weapon is one without a difference. The official noted that Gabbard underscored in her March testimony that Iran had the resources to potentially build a nuclear weapon. Her testimony in March reflected intelligence she received that Iran was not building a weapon at the time but that the country could do so based on the resources it amassed for such an endeavor. Leavitt is the youngest press secretary in U.S. history, assuming the role at age 27. Some liberal critics, such as Joy Behar of "The View," attempted to discount her appointment when she was first tapped by Trump, and she has since emerged as a Trump administration firebrand during her routine White House press briefings. Though Leavitt has overwhelmingly been praised by supporters of the president for her defense of the administration and repeated fiery exchanges with left-wing media outlets during briefings, her tenure has overwhelmingly focused on domestic issues. Leavitt has kept the nation updated on issues such as mass deportation efforts, Trump's ongoing list of executive orders affecting policies from transgender issues to electric vehicles, national tragedies such as the terror attack in Boulder targeting Jewish Americans and Trump's wide-ranging tariff policy that affects foreign nations. Though the administration entered office with a war raging between Russia and Ukraine, as well as the ongoing war in Israel after Hamas attacked the country in 2023, the Israel–Iran conflict provides Leavitt with her first major international crisis that could include U.S. involvement. Leavitt's highly anticipated first press briefing since Israel launched its preemptive strikes is scheduled for Thursday.
Malay Mail
18 hours ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
Trump's playbook: Pressure, provocation, and pageantry — Abbi Kanthasamy
JUNE 19 — Trump's foreign policy isn't subtle. It's not crafted in think tanks or hashed out in backchannel negotiations. It's performative. It's loud. It's often dangerous. Here's what South-east Asia can expect: More sanctions: Trump will reimpose — and expand — sanctions on Iranian oil. China, India, and Malaysia could get hit with secondary sanctions if they continue buying. Green light for Israel: Expect US backing for Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. If Iran retaliates, the US is in — willingly or not. Maritime mayhem: The Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil flows, could be closed. Iranian naval mines, Us carriers, missile exchanges — the works. No patience for Asean neutrality: Trump won't tolerate fence-sitting. Countries trading with Iran or hedging with China might find themselves on the wrong side of a tweet — or a tariff. According to the author, US President Donald Trump doesn't do multilateralism. He does ultimatums. And in this volatile new order, fence-sitters risk getting gored. — Reuters pic Malacca, not Manhattan, will feel the heat While Western analysts debate Pentagon strategy and Gulf troop deployments, here's what they're missing: South-east Asia will be the economic shock absorber of this conflict. 1. Oil shock therapy Oil markets are already on edge. Brent crude is flirting with three-digit territory again. If war breaks out, US$150/barrel (RM640) isn't a fantasy — it's a floor. Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines — all oil importers — will see inflation soar. Subsidies will balloon. Currencies will shiver. Central banks will be forced into impossible corners: hike rates and kill growth, or print money and kill stability. 2. Shipping reroutes = Chaos With the Red Sea unsafe, global trade will reroute. The Strait of Malacca becomes the new Suez. Ports in Singapore, Penang, Klang, and Batam will choke with redirected container traffic. Expect congestion, insurance hikes, and shipping delays. Expect chaos. 3. Geopolitical headaches China, Iran's top oil customer, will push back hard against Trump's sanctions. Asean, caught in the middle, will be squeezed — diplomatically, economically, and militarily. This is not the time to have no plan. Can Asean afford to be a spectator? For decades, Asean has survived by not picking sides. But Trump's return might blow neutrality out of the water. Do you trade with Iran? Prepare for sanctions. Do you buy American weapons? Prepare for scrutiny. Do you hedge with China? Prepare for pressure. Trump doesn't do multilateralism. He does ultimatums. And in this volatile new order, fence-sitters risk getting gored. So what now? Trump may not want a full-blown war. But that's not the point. History rarely asks for permission. One wrong move in Hormuz, one Israeli miscalculation, one Iranian overreaction — and suddenly we're not talking about hypotheticals anymore. We're talking about US$12 nasi lemak and 20 per cent interest rates. It's time South-east Asia woke up. This isn't just an American problem. It's not even just a Middle Eastern problem. It's a global crisis in the making — with the potential to leave Asean gasping for air between supply shocks, security dilemmas, and diplomatic traps. In Trump's world, the strong make the rules. The rest dodge the fallout. Brace yourselves. The elephants are dancing again. And the grass — that's us — has never looked more fragile. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
