Latest news with #militarystrike
Sky News
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Trump's two-week timeline: What next for Iran?
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said Donald Trump will make a decision on whether to militarily strike Iran in the next two weeks. That's as diplomatic talks between Western governments and the Iranians ramp up. In today's episode, US correspondents Mark Stone and Martha Kelner unpick why the delay might be, and the competing voices in the ears of the president. If you've got a question you'd like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@ YouTube channel.
CNN
8 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Trump Decision On Iran Could Come In Two Weeks - The Arena with Kasie Hunt - Podcast on CNN Audio
Trump Decision On Iran Could Come In Two Weeks The Arena with Kasie Hunt 47 mins Kasie Hunt speaks with a Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the prospect of an American military strike on Iran. The former NATO Supreme Allied Commander weighs in on the chances of President Trump taking action. Plus, an inside look at the damage in Tehran.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
A familiar metric: White House says to expect Iran decision within ‘two weeks'
When it comes to a possible U.S. military strike in Iran, Donald Trump has raised more questions than he's answered. Last week, the president and his team went out of their way to say that the United States had 'nothing to do with' Israel's attack on Iran. This week, Trump declared, 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' before demanding the country's 'unconditional surrender.' No one seems able to say with confidence what the Republican intends to do, why he'd do it, or even when we might learn of his decision. I've found myself periodically checking his social media platform, looking for some kind of poorly written 'Bombs Away' message, followed by an unhealthy number of exclamation points. Evidently, I can stop hitting refresh — for two weeks. At her latest briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged the 'speculation' about the White House's policy, which led her to read a prepared statement from the president. It read, 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' It's difficult to say with confidence whether these negotiations exist or whether they'll succeed, but the fact that Trump and his team has rolled out another 'two week' timeline represents a remarkable failure of self-awareness. Last week for example, the president said U.S. trading partners should expect letters on unilateral tariff rates in 'two weeks.' Shortly before that, the president was asked about Vladimir Putin's alleged interest in 'peace.' He replied, 'I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks.' Last month, Trump was asked about tariff rates on pharmaceutical products. 'I'll know in the next two weeks,' he said. Alas, we can keep going. Where's Trump's health care plan? It'll be ready in 'two weeks.' What about a possible minimum-wage increase? That, too, will be unveiled in 'two weeks.' On everything from tax policy to infrastructure, immigration to reproductive health, the president's detailed solutions are always just 'two weeks' away. By now, most observers are probably familiar with how the game is played: The Republican is asked for his position on an issue; he dodges the question by saying he'll make an announcement 'in two weeks'; and then he waits for everyone to forget about his self-imposed deadline. Except, we don't forget. Instead, we shake our heads in exasperation because of the cynical assumptions at the heart of this unfortunate rhetorical trick, which no one falls for anymore. In this latest example, a reporter felt compelled to remind Leavitt of the familiarity of the administration's latest timeline. If recent history is any guide, she and Trump will keep using it anyway, indifferent to the embarrassment. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Telegraph
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Israel strikes Iranian nuclear reactor
Israel struck an Iranian reactor in the central city of Arak on Thursday in its latest efforts to destroy the regime's nuclear programme. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it targeted Iran's heavy water nuclear reactor, striking what it described as 'a key component in plutonium production'. A black-and-white video, circulated online by the IDF, showed a missile crashing into the target, followed by a large explosion. Both sides have been fighting for nearly a week since Israel launched attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and killed several top generals and nuclear scientists. On Thursday, Israel said its warplanes also struck a facility at Natanz, a key Iranian nuclear site, which was being used to develop nuclear weapons, a military spokesman said. 'The site houses unique components and equipment used for the development of nuclear weapons, and hosts projects that enable the acceleration of the nuclear weapons programme,' the IDF said. Earlier on Thursday, the IDF announced it had struck a nuclear site in Bushehr, which sits on the Gulf coast and is understood to be Iran's only operating power plant. The announcement caused concern among neighbouring Gulf states because of the contamination risk to the surrounding air and water. But Israel was forced to retract the statement admitting it had been a 'mistake'. When pushed, the spokesman said it could 'neither confirm nor deny' whether the reactor was attacked. Israel has said its goal for the war is to demolish Iran's nuclear programme, which the West fears is close to building a bomb. Some officials signalling that the attacks are also aimed at forcing the collapse of the Iranian regime, with possible US support in the near future. The Arak nuclear reactor has been a key feature of Iran's nuclear programme for decades, with Tehran insisting that it is only used for civilian purposes and not for the creation of nuclear bombs. Iran agreed in 2016 to remove the core of the Arak reactor and fill it up with concrete, under the now-defunct Iran nuclear deal, which eased sanctions on Tehran in exchange for curbing the nuclear programme. The first Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear pact in 2018. In 2019, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's nuclear programme chief, said Tehran had replaced a calandria, a key component in the reactor, so that work on the programme could resume. The IDF said: 'The reactor is designed to produce high-yield plutonium, which would enable the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The attack was carried out against the component intended for producing plutonium, thus preventing its ability to be reused to produce nuclear weapons.' It added that it had also carried out overnight strikes involving 40 aircraft and 100 munitions against several Iranian military facilities. Later on Thursday, Zohar Palti, a former senior Mossad officer, said he believed Israel 'should declare victory' after successful attacks on most of Iran's nuclear sites. 'Now that Israel has succeeded in striking most of its nuclear targets in Iran, Israel has a window of two or three days to declare the victory and end the war,' he told The New York Times. Israel is rapidly burning through missile interceptors to counter Iranian attacks, and may have to make difficult decisions about which areas to prioritise for air defence if the war drags on at length, The New York Times report suggested.
CBS News
18 hours ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Trump sees disabling Iran nuclear site as necessary as he weighs decision on strike
Washington — President Trump has been briefed on both the risks and the benefits of bombing Fordo, Iran's most secure nuclear site, and his mindset is that disabling it is necessary because of the risk of weapons being produced in a relatively short period of time, multiple sources told CBS News. "He believes there's not much choice," one source said. "Finishing the job means destroying Fordo." The president approved attack plans on Iran on Tuesday night, but has not made a final decision on whether to strike the country and formally join Israel's air campaign, a senior intelligence source and a Defense Department official told CBS News on Wednesday. Mr. Trump held off on deciding to strike in case Tehran agrees to abandon its nuclear program, the sources said. CBS News previously reported that Mr. Trump was weighing a strike on Fordo, a subterranean uranium enrichment facility. Israel has not conducted any known strikes on Fordo since it began bombing Iranian nuclear and military targets late last week. Trump's decision Mr. Trump is willing to get the U.S. involved if that's what it takes to knock out the site, sources said. As of Thursday morning, he was still reviewing his options and has not made a firm decision either way. He has discussed the logistics of using bunker-buster bombs, two of the sources said. It was not immediately clear how much of the U.S. military infrastructure needed for a strike was in place or how much time it would take to move assets into position. One option Mr. Trump has considered is that Iran could disable Fordo on its own, if its leaders so choose, two of the sources said. David Lammy, the foreign secretary of the U.K., is set to meet with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington later Thursday, a European official said, with active diplomacy underway to find an off-ramp in the conflict and make a take-it-or-leave-it offer to Iran. London maintains an embassy in Tehran, giving the U.K. visibility that the U.S. does not have in the Iranian capital. Mr. Trump is aware of the diplomatic effort being undertaken, with EU officials set to meet with the Iranian foreign minister in Switzerland on Friday. Mr. Trump has viewed intelligence reports indicating the estimated speed at which Iran could produce bombs, two of the sources said. John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, has said in closed-door settings that Iran is viewed as being very close to possessing nuclear weapons, despite the official line from the intelligence community that Iran's leadership hasn't given a formal order to build bombs, according to multiple sources. Ratcliffe has said that claiming Iran isn't close would be similar to saying football players who have fought their way to the one-yard line don't want to score a touchdown, one U.S. official said. "Things change, especially with war" Mr. Trump told reporters on Wednesday he had not made a final decision on whether to strike Iran. "I like to make the final decision one second before it's due, because things change, especially with war," he said. "I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," he said earlier in the day, adding that he'd like Iran to negotiate on a deal to end its nuclear program. Iran — which has long insisted the program exists solely for peaceful purposes — said Wednesday it "does NOT negotiate under duress," and said it would "respond to any threat with a counter-threat." Iran has prepared missiles and equipment for strikes on U.S. bases in the Middle East if the U.S. joins the Israeli campaign, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official and a Pentagon official briefed on the matter. Israel began striking Iran last Friday morning. The Trump administration has said publicly it is not participating in the offensive strikes, though CBS News previously reported the U.S. has helped Israel intercept Iran's retaliatory missile strikes. In recent days, Mr. Trump has not ruled out the idea of joining Israel's campaign, saying on Truth Social his "patience is wearing thin." The president said Tuesday the U.S. knows the whereabouts of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social. On Sunday, CBS News reported Mr. Trump had opposed an Israeli plan to kill Khamenei.
