Latest from Gulf Today
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Trump to make Iran war decision in 'next two weeks'
US President Donald Trump said Thursday he will decide whether to join Israel's strikes on Iran within the next two weeks as there is still a "substantial" chance of talks to end the conflict. Trump's move to hit the pause button could open up space for diplomacy, after days of fevered questions about whether or not he would order US military action against Tehran. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt read out a message from Trump after what she called "a lot of speculation" about whether the United States would be "directly involved" in the conflict. "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," Trump said in the statement. Trump has set two-week deadlines that subsequently shifted on a series of other tough topics in the past, including the Russia-Ukraine war -- but Leavitt denied he was putting off a decision. "If there's a chance for diplomacy the president's always going to grab it, but he's not afraid to use strength as well," Leavitt said. At the same time Leavitt reinforced the sense of urgency, telling reporters that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in the space of a "couple of weeks." "Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon. All they need is a decision from the supreme leader to do that, and it would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon," she said. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying that its program is for peaceful purposes. Trump said on Wednesday that Iran had asked to send officials to the White House to negotiate a deal on its nuclear program and end the conflict with Israel -- although Iran denied making any such request. Washington and Tehran had continued "correspondence" since Israel first struck Iran last week, Leavitt said. She said however that there were currently no plans for Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff to join European diplomats meeting Iran's foreign minister in Geneva on Friday. Trump met his top national security team in the White House Situation Room for the third day in a row on Thursday. He will have similar meetings daily until he leaves for a NATO summit in the Netherlands on Monday, the White House said. His two-week deadline comes after a tense few days in which Trump publicly mulled joining Israel's strikes on Iran and said that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was an "easy target." Trump had spent weeks pursuing a diplomatic path towards a deal to replace the nuclear deal with Iran that he tore up in his first term in 2018. But he has since backed Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and military top brass, while mulling whether to join in. A key issue is that the United States is the only country with the huge "bunker buster" bombs that could destroy Iran's crucial Fordo Iranian nuclear enrichment plant. "We have capabilities that no other country on this planet possesses," said Leavitt. The White House meanwhile urged Trump supporters to "trust" the president as he decides whether to act. A number of key figures in his "Make America Great Again" movement, including commentator Tucker Carlson and former aide Steve Bannon, have vocally opposed US strikes on Iran. Trump's promise to extract the United States from its "forever wars" in the Middle East played a role in his 2016 and 2024 election wins. "Trust in President Trump. President Trump has incredible instincts," Leavitt said. Agence France-Presse
Gulf Today
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Trump privately approved attack plans for Iran pending final order, WSJ reports
US President Donald Trump told senior aides late on Tuesday that he approved attack plans for Iran but has withheld a final order to see if Tehran would abandon its nuclear program, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing three people familiar with the deliberations. Israel struck a key Iranian nuclear site on Thursday and Iranian missiles hit an Israeli hospital, as President Donald Trump kept the world guessing about whether the US would join Israel in airstrikes seeking to destroy Tehran's nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has vowed to press on with Israel's biggest ever attack on Iran until his arch enemy's nuclear programme is destroyed, said Tehran's "tyrants" would pay the "full price". His Defence Minister Israel Katz said the military had been instructed to intensify strikes on strategic-related targets in Tehran in order to eliminate the threat to Israel and destabilise the "Ayatollah regime". Netanyahu has said that Israel's military attacks could topple the regime in Iran, and Israel would do whatever is necessary to remove the "existential threat" posed by Tehran. A week of Israeli air and missile strikes against its major rival has wiped out the top echelon of Iran's military command, damaged its nuclear capabilities and killed hundreds of people, while Iranian retaliatory strikes have killed at least two dozen civilians in Israel. The Israeli military said it targeted the Khondab nuclear reactor in Iran's central city Arak overnight, including a partially-built heavy-water research reactor. Heavy-water reactors produce plutonium, which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. Iranian media reported two projectiles hitting an area near the facility. There were no reports of radiation threats. Israel's military said it also struck a site in the area of Natanz, which it said contains components and specialised equipment used to advance nuclear weapons development. Iran has always denied planning to build an atomic weapon and says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. Its Atomic Energy Organisation said Israel had attacked its nuclear sites "in renewed violation of international law" and that there were no casualties because the areas had been evacuated. On Thursday morning, several Iranian missiles struck populated areas in Israel, including a hospital in the southern part of the country, according to an Israeli military official. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it was targeting Israeli military and intelligence headquarters near Soroka medical centre in the city of Beersheba in the south of the country. Soroka reported it had sustained damage. The week of Iranian missile salvoes mark the first time in decades of shadow war and proxy conflict that a significant number of projectiles fired from Iran have penetrated defences, killing Israelis in their homes. Trails of missiles and interception efforts were visible in the skies over Tel Aviv, with explosions heard as incoming projectiles were intercepted. Israeli media also reported direct hits in central Israel. Emergency services said five people had been seriously injured in the attacks and dozens of others hurt in three separate locations. People were still trapped in a building in a south Tel Aviv neighbourhood, they added. Around a dozen mostly European and African embassies and diplomatic missions are located just a few hundred metres from the strike on Tel Aviv. Buildings were extensively damaged in Ramat Gan near Tel Aviv, a key commercial hub home to high-rise towers, and emergency workers helping residents, including children. The blast caused significant damage to nearby residential buildings and shattered windows across the area. "It's very scary," said Yaniv, 34, who lives just a few hundred meters away. He said he heard a deafening explosion when the missile hit, shaking his apartment tower. The worst-ever conflict between the two regional powers has raised fears that it will draw in world powers and further destabilize the Middle East. Oil prices surged after Israel said it attacked Iranian nuclear sites overnight, as investors grapple with fears of a broader conflict in the Middle East that could disrupt crude supplies. Agencies
Gulf Today
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
How much damage has Israel inflicted on Iran's nuclear programme?
Israel's strikes on Iran have targeted several of its nuclear facilities as it claims the country is seeking to develop nuclear weapons -- an accusation Tehran denies. Experts told AFP that while the attacks had caused some damage to Iran's nuclear programme, they are unlikely to have delivered a fatal blow. Here is an update on Iran's nuclear sites as of Wednesday. - What is the extent of the damage? - Israel's operation included strikes on Iran's underground uranium enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, and on its Isfahan nuclear site, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said, citing Iranian officials. A key, above-ground component of Iran's Natanz nuclear site has been destroyed, including its power infrastructure, the IAEA reported Monday. The UN watchdog added Tuesday that satellite images indicated possible "direct impacts" on the underground section of the plant, where thousands of centrifuges are operating to enrich uranium. At the underground Fordow enrichment plant, Iran's second uranium enrichment facility, the IAEA said it observed "no damage" following the attacks. At the Isfahan nuclear site, however, "four buildings were damaged" -- the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and a metal processing facility under construction, the IAEA said. Significant uranium stockpiles are believed to be stored around the Isfahan site. Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group's Iran project director, told AFP that if Iran managed to transfer significant quantities to "secret facilities," then "the game is lost for Israel". Iran's only nuclear power plant, the Bushehr plant, was not targeted, nor was the Tehran research reactor. - Can the programme be destroyed? - While "Israel can damage Iran's nuclear programme... it is unlikely to be able to destroy it," Vaez said, saying that Israel did not have the massively powerful bombs needed "to destroy the fortified, bunkered facilities in Natanz and Fordow". Destroying those would require US military assistance, added Kelsey Davenport, an expert with the Arms Control Association. She also noted that Israel's unprecedented attack would not erase the expertise Iran had built up on nuclear weapons, despite killing nine Iranian nuclear scientists. - What are the risks to the Iranian population? - The IAEA has not detected any increase in radiation levels at the affected sites. "There is very little risk that attacks on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities would result in a harmful radiation release," Davenport said. But an attack on the Bushehr plant could "have a serious impact on health and the environment", she said. After Israel launched its strikes, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said that nuclear facilities "must never be attacked" and that targeting Iranian sites could have "grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond" - Is Iran close to developing a nuclear bomb? - After the United States under President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from a landmark deal that sought to curb Tehran's nuclear activities, Iran has gradually retreated from some of its obligations, particularly on uranium enrichment. As of mid-May, the country had an estimated 408.6 kilogrammes (900 pounds) enriched to up to 60 percent -- just a short step from the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Iran theoretically has enough near-weapons-grade material, if further refined, for about 10 nuclear bombs, according to the definition by the Vienna-based IAEA. Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed state producing uranium to this level of enrichment, according to the UN nuclear watchdog. - How much damage has Israel inflicted on Iran's nuclear programme? - While the IAEA has been critical of Iran's lack of cooperation with the UN body, it says there are "no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear programme". Tehran has consistently denied ambitions to develop nuclear warheads. But Davenport warned that the strikes could strengthen factions in Iran advocating for an atomic arsenal. "Israel's strikes set Iran back technically, but politically the strikes are pushing Iran closer to nuclear weapons," she said. Agence France-Presse
Gulf Today
15 hours ago
- Business
- Gulf Today
World Bank expects 4.9% growth for UAE economy in 2026, 2027
The World Bank has projected that the UAE's economic growth will continue on an upward trajectory, reaching 4.6 per cent in 2025 and stabilising at 4.9 percent during 2026 and 2027. The World Bank confirmed that the UAE's non-oil sectors continue to play a key role as a main driver of growth, with an expected growth rate of 4.9 percent in 2025. According to the latest edition of the Gulf Economic Update (GEU) issued by the World Bank, which is based on information available as of 1st June, economic growth in the GCC countries is expected to rise in the medium term, reaching 3.2 percent in 2025 and 4.5 percent in 2026. According to the World Bank, strong expansion in non-oil sectors is contributing to the growth achieved by Gulf economies. According to the latest edition of the GEU, the region witnessed notable economic growth of 1.7 percent in 2024, compared to 0.3 percent in 2023. The report noted that the non-oil sector continued to demonstrate its resilience, with a 3.7 percent increase. This growth was significantly driven by private consumption, investment, and structural reforms implemented in GCC countries. In Bahrain, growth is expected to stabilise at 3.5 percent in 2025, while economic growth in Kuwait is expected to recover significantly and reach 2.2 percent in 2025. Growth in the Sultanate of Oman is expected to gradually accelerate to 3 percent in 2025, compared to 1.7 percent in 2024, 3.7 percent in 2026, and 4 percent in 2027. The report expects economic growth in Qatar to remain stable at 2.4 per cent in 2025, compared to 2.6 percent in 2024, before accelerating to an average of 6.5 percent in 2026–2027. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the World Bank report expects economic growth to continue recovering to 2.8 percent in 2025 and reach an average of 4.6 percent in 2026–2027. The World Bank report also highlighted the challenges associated with uncertainty surrounding global trade, noting that the risk of a global economic slowdown continues to negatively impact the region. It recommended accelerating reforms aimed at diversifying economic activity and enhancing regional trade to mitigate these risks in GCC countries. Safaa El Tayeb El-Kogali, Division Director for the GCC countries at the World Bank, said 'The resilience of GCC countries in navigating global uncertainties while advancing economic diversification underscores their strong commitment to long-term prosperity.' She added, ""Strategic fiscal policies, targeted investments, and a strong focus on innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation for youth are essential to sustaining growth and stability." The report titled "Smart Spending, Stronger Outcomes: Fiscal Policy for a Thriving GCC', discusses the effectiveness of fiscal policy in ensuring macroeconomic stabilization and encouraging growth. The topic is particularly relevant as oil price fluctuations strain budget balances in several countries across the region. The report finds that government spending in the GCC region has effectively stabilized economies, especially during recessionary episodes. The findings show that a 1-unit increase in fiscal spending can boost non-hydrocarbon output by 0.1-0.45 units in the region. WAM
Gulf Today
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Britain must be ready to reform international agreements
Something extraordinary has just happened. In March, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said that she was reviewing the way the European Convention on Human Rights was being interpreted by the courts. Three months later, no one will defend the convention as it is. Two more MPs joined the stampede to change it today: Jake Richards and Dan Tomlinson, two ambitious Labour backbenchers, have a joint article in The Times calling for "reform" of the convention. It became clear that this was not just a matter of tactical positioning in British politics when nine EU leaders, led by the prime ministers of Italy and Denmark, published an open letter on 22 May to launch an 'open-minded conversation" about the "interpretation" of the convention. They said: 'We have seen, for example, cases concerning the expulsion of criminal foreign nationals where the interpretation of the convention has resulted in the protection of the wrong people and posed too many limitations on the states' ability to decide whom to expel from their territories." A week later, Richard Hermer, the UK attorney general, delivered a lecture that attracted attention for suggesting that Kemi Badenoch's wish to "disengage" from the European court was like legal arguments made in Nazi Germany to "put aside" international law. He had to apologise for that "clumsy" analogy, which meant that hardly anyone noticed something else he said in the lecture, namely that Britain must be ready to "reform" international agreements such as the convention so that they retain "democratic legitimacy". A few days later, Alain Berset, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, the body that oversees the convention and its court, and which as every Brexit pedant knows is separate from the European Union, said: "We need adaptation. We need discussion about the rules that we want to have, and there is no taboo." In just a few weeks, the debate has moved from "how the convention is interpreted" to "rewriting the convention itself". Something is happening. It is almost as if European leaders have learned from their failure to give David Cameron reforms that would have enabled him to win the referendum and keep Britain in the EU. They have realised that they need to change the ECHR in order to save it. The transformation of the politics of the issue in the UK was confirmed last week, when Ed Davey said that he wouldn't be opposed to rewriting the convention. "If you could do it collectively, working with the court, with European colleagues, yes, one could look at that," he said. That is Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who fought a general election on a promise to cancel Brexit; the party that most venerates European institutions and international law. What is going on? Nigel Farage claims that he has changed the terms of the debate: that the liberal establishment is panicking because of his campaign against the ECHR. First, he forced Kemi Badenoch to harden her line, inherited from Rishi Sunak, of being prepared to repudiate the ECHR if necessary; now the government is trying to hold back the tide by reviewing the way the convention is interpreted or even amending it. This is not the whole story. I don't think Giorgia Meloni and Mette Frederiksen were prompted to publish their open letter by Reform's success in British opinion polls. They were responding to a genuine problem that has frustrated elected leaders for a long time. I remember Tony Blair being as irritated as his first-class temperament would allow at the Chahal decision of 1996 that made it hard for him to deport various criminals and terrorists. But the way the convention, especially article 8, the right to family life, has been interpreted, both by the European Court of Human Rights and by national courts, has become more of a problem in recent years. In Britain, the Telegraph has given the appearance of campaigning against human rights law by simply reporting a series of rulings by immigration tribunals. (Perhaps the most eye-catching use of the ECHR in recent months was the Albanian criminal whose deportation was halted partly because of his young son's aversion to foreign chicken nuggets.)
