Search results for "iran"

Top conservative outlet calls it: Trump deal a 'windfall' for Iran

The editorial board at the staunchly conservative magazine The National Review has made a bold statement on President Donald Trump’s war with Iran, comparing the outcome to that of the Vietnam War — which was famously among the United States’ most terrible military debacles.

The Review’s comparison was inspired by a statement by Vietnam War-era State Department official John Negroponte, who, following Richard Nixon’s murderous 1972 Christmas bombing campaign, declared, “We bombed them into accepting our concessions.” In other words, regardless of all the bombs dropped, it was the U.S. that ended up yielding.

“A similar verdict,” asserted the Review, “seems appropriate for President Trump’s war on Iran.”

According to the outlet’s editors, “The memorandum of understanding that both parties are signing is lopsided in Iran’s favor. The main concession from the Iranians is reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but the commercial artery won’t be returning to the status quo ante. The memorandum says that Tehran will not charge fees ‘for 60 days,’ implying that Iran will begin extracting tolls thereafter. In exchange, the U.S. is lifting its blockade on Iranian ports and agreeing to let the Iranians sell oil, a source of revenue totaling tens of billions of dollars a year.”

And that’s just the beginning of the Review’s list of grievances toward the agreement. The editors decry that it will unfreeze Iranian assets to the tune of $24 billion, wondering “how many proverbial pallets will be needed to deliver this cash windfall to Iran” — a snarky reference to Trump’s 2015 campaign accusation that President Obama had sent “pallets of cash” to Iran as part of his nuclear deal. As the Review points out, Trump’s deal also floats the idea of lifting all sanctions and provides Iran with a $300 investment fund.

The editors also took issue with Trump’s handling of the nuclear question, explaining, “In a lamentable press availability at the G-7 summit, President Trump explicitly said Iran should be able to enrich at low levels. This, coupled with Trump’s consistently dismissive remarks about obtaining Iran’s nuclear ‘dust,’ suggests that Iran won’t give up enrichment or hand over its uranium, both of which have long been considered key benchmarks for setting back Iran’s program.”

“Meanwhile,” notes the Review, “there is no reference to Iran’s missiles, even though ending Iran’s missile threat was originally one of the U.S. war aims. At his presser, Trump pooh-poohed constraining Iran’s missile arsenal, arguing — incredibly enough — that any individual missile strike only causes limited damage. There’s similarly no direct mention of Iran’s support for regional proxies; that Obama’s JCPOA didn’t address this, either, was supposed to be one of the main criticisms of it. Finally, the memorandum says the conflict will also end in Lebanon, an Iranian ploy to protect Hezbollah and drive a wedge between the U.S. and Israel.”

These poor outcomes, assert the editors, arose because Trump’s “conception of the war was beset by a lack of realism and reckless optimism.” He overestimated what the death of the previous Ayatollah Khamenei would mean for the conflict, and didn’t take expert warnings about the risks regarding Hormuz seriously. He also failed to obtain congressional authorization, and “did almost nothing to make the public case for it beforehand. Thus, there was no reservoir of political support to fall back on when things didn’t go as he had hoped. His seat-of-pants governance and executive high-handedness bear much responsibility for the unsatisfactory outcome.”

In the end, “the Iranian regime is living to fight another day with greater control over the strait and significant financial relief.” What’s more, “Trump has dropped all talk of the Iranian people taking back their country, when his assurances that ‘help is on its way’ during last year’s street protests helped create the predicate for Operation Epic Fury.”

The Review’s conclusion is anything but positive. As the editors note, “Trump has said in the past that Iran has never won a war, yet never lost a negotiation. As the president and his administration now make the case for a memorandum of understanding that doesn’t meet any U.S. strategic objective, it’s impossible to say he was wrong.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

GOP strategist reveals 'the greatest irony' to Trump's Iran surrender

As information emerges about President Donald Trump’s peace deal to end his war with Iran, there has been no shortage of criticism about the many concessions it offers from the American side. According to longtime Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, Trump’s surrender has not only been a major loss for the U.S., but its greatest irony may be that it validated the actions of one of the president's predecessors and top adversaries: Barack Obama.

On Wednesday, Schmidt explained what he asserts are the three looming ironies to Trump’s failed “excursion” to Iran.

First was the very fact that “the president who thundered that there would be nothing less than ‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!’ now appears prepared to conclude his war by accepting an agreement that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the diplomacy he once condemned as treasonous. If the reported Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is signed this week, the United States will have spent months at war, exhausted enormous military resources, suffered American casualties, destabilized the global economy, and emerged not with the destruction of the Iranian regime, but with another negotiated framework. That’s not ‘unconditional surrender.’ It’s negotiation. It’s compromise. It’s the very thing Donald Trump spent a decade telling the American people was weakness. The irony is staggering.”

Then Schmidt raised Trump’s assertions regarding Obama’s previous deal with Iran.

“There is another irony that deserves attention because history has a wicked sense of humor,” wrote Schmidt. “Donald Trump built much of his foreign policy identity around destroying Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. He called it ‘the worst deal ever negotiated.’ Republicans spent years portraying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as an act of appeasement. The accusation was simple. Obama negotiated with terrorists. Obama rewarded aggression. Obama was weak.”

Now in the aftermath of Trump’s war, says Schmidt, it is clear which president had the wiser approach.

“Barack Obama negotiated before there was a war,” writes Schmidt. “Donald Trump fought the war first — then he negotiated. Obama’s critics promised that strength would produce a dramatically better outcome. Instead, America appears poised to arrive at another agreement centered on sanctions, inspections, nuclear limitations, implementation timelines and economic incentives — the very architecture that Republicans spent years condemning.”

And according to Schmidt, “The road between those two agreements is measured not simply in dollars, but in blood. The cost and destruction have been immense. Entire regions have been destabilized. American military stockpiles have been depleted. Strategic deterrence has been tested. Global markets have been shaken. The prestige of American power has been diminished because maximalist promises created expectations that reality could never satisfy.”

Finally, according to Schmidt, “The greatest irony of all may be this: Barack Obama was vilified for negotiating with Iran. Donald Trump may ultimately be remembered for fighting a costly war only to negotiate over many of the same questions. History has a cruel way of exposing the distance between rhetoric and reality. That distance is measured in lives, treasure and broken promises — and it is measured by the judgment of history, which has never accepted slogans as substitutes for success.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

White House goes to war with Republicans over Iran

President Donald Trump has received ample pushback over his decision to launch war with Iran from those outside the GOP, but as a growing number of Republicans question its progress, infighting has broken out between increasingly concerned conservatives and diehard MAGA loyalists. According to the New Republic, glaring evidence of this GOP infighting came over the weekend in the form of social media sparring between Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and White House advisor Alex Bruesewitz.

“I am deeply concerned about what we are hearing about an Iran ‘deal,’” tweeted Cruz. “If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime — still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ — now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake.”

Bruesewitz — a dedicated MAGA influencer who helps with the administration’s social media meme needs — jumped in, responding, “Cool, Ted. No one asked you, bro. Stop trying to undermine the President and his administration.”

“Hush, child,” Cruz clapped back. “The adults are talking. I’m not your ‘bro.’ And young political grifters pushing Iran appeasement are not remotely helping the President.”

The response from Bruesewitz strayed from the proverbial high road: “Sorry you’re still salty that I prevented you from getting a picture with Nicki Minaj after you came running after her like a school girl. You’re going to get wiped out in 2028, clown.”

That same day, Trump’s former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo received similar treatment after posting that “the deal being floated with Iran seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman – Robert Malley – Ben Rhodes playbook: Pay the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] to build a [weapons of mass destruction] program and terrorize the world. Not remotely America First.”

“Mike Pompeo has no idea what the f–– he’s talking about,” said White House Communications Director Steven Cheung. “He should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals. He’s not read into anything that’s happening, so how would he know.”

Pompeo and Cruz are far from the only Republicans raising concerns about the war and Trump’s negotiations, with GOP leaders calling it “disastrous” and suggesting that it could result in a “perception of weakness.” Even Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — who has been frothing at the mouth for war with Iran for decades — ventured of the latest developments, “It makes one wonder why the war started to begin with.”

All of this, asserts the New Republic, is sign of a GOP breakup, and that the “MAGA coalition is sadder and more dysfunctional than ever.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Trump is trapped and has 'no way' out

Iran has successfully throttled the Strait of Hormuz for months now, over the course of which President Donald Trump has declared the vital waterway “open” or otherwise controlled by the U.S. “on at least two dozen occasions.” But regardless of his claims, Trump is now in an “intractable situation” from which he has “no way” out. This is according to journalist Judd Legum, who on Tuesday explained precisely why Trump finds himself between a rock and a hard place.

On Monday, Trump once again declared that “the Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran.” As Legum notes, however, not only is Trump’s claim false, but he made it while simultaneously announcing that the U.S. would undertake an effort to blockade Iranian ships while charging a 20 percent fee on cargo passing through, “but it’s unclear how any of this accomplishes the goal of opening the strait or bringing down the cost of energy. In response to Trump’s announcement, energy prices spiked.”

According to Legum, “This outcome was entirely predictable. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz as a response to foreign aggression for 50 years. Four months later, the Trump administration still has not identified an effective strategy to reopen the strait. Instead, Trump simply asserts that the Strait of Hormuz is open or under U.S. control — over and over again. Trump shifted abruptly between claiming the strait would open soon, claiming the strait was already open, and claiming the strait was closed only because he decided to close it. At no point were any of these claims accurate.”

While the Trump administration, via the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, announced it “will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz,” this has failed to entice the vast majority of shippers to take the risk. As Legum explains, “Iran has closed or severely restricted traffic in the Strait of Hormuz using a combination of mines, anti-ship missiles, drones, and small high-speed attack boats. The U.S. military has been unable to effectively counter these measures, despite its massive budget and superior capabilities. Iran can create enough uncertainty to dissuade transit through the strait with cheap, haphazard tactics.”

With all this in mind, “Trump now finds himself in an intractable situation. His only apparent avenue for opening the strait is to get Iran to agree to open the strait. But Iran has come to the conclusion that its control of the strait is its best leverage against the United States and other enemies.”

“That leaves Trump with no way to open the Strait of Hormuz and no way to extricate himself from an unpopular war while the strait remains closed,” concludes Legum. “The Trump administration’s failure to anticipate Iran’s response to a U.S. attack was one of the biggest military blunders in recent history. American consumers will likely pay the price for years to come.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Trump 'humiliated because Iran is 'culturally incomprehensible' to him

President Donald Trump is "lashing out" against Iran and left "humiliated" as his much-hyped ceasefire deal falls apart, and as one veteran reporter explained for The i Paper, it all comes down to the fact that the country is "culturally incomprehensible" to him.

Trump raged against Iran during his visit to the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on Wednesday, saying that the ceasefire with the Middle Eastern nation is "over" after attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and strikes against American military bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. He also called Iranian leaders "sick" and "scum," claiming he had no further interest in negotiating with them.

"They’re sick people, they’re led by sick people. They’re vicious, violent people," Trump said. "If they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over."

Simon Marks is a veteran reporter based in Washington, D.C., and in a Wednesday piece for The i Paper, he explained how this new tantrum from Trump over Iran was "a fresh demonstration" that he fundamentally lacks the skills and temperament to successfully manage a diplomatic deal with such a country. Furthermore, he argued that the breakdown stems from a cultural incompatibility with Trump's understanding of how to make deals in the first place.

"Trump’s latest bout of fury is a fresh demonstration that he has neither the patience nor the diplomatic mindset for the difficult negotiations that were set in motion by the [memorandum of understanding]," Marks wrote. "He expects Iran’s leaders to behave like New York property moguls. But they are not dealmakers in the American tradition, and Trump indicated on Wednesday that he finds their conduct culturally incomprehensible."

Numerous other observers have come to similar conclusions about the fraught peace talks, suggesting that Trump most likely expected to be able to bully Iran into total surrender, or to at least get them to give him something he can tout as a victory, as many other nations have learned to do when dealing with him. Iran's leaders are uninterested in any of that, having a strong desire to maintain their own strongman image, as Trump is, putting them almost irreconcilably at odds.

"If I make a deal with him, he goes out and he talks [about it]," Trump added at the summit, referring to NATO chief Mark Rutte. "If I make a deal [with Iran], and everyone is agreed, no nuclear weapon, they go out and say to the press: ‘We never even talked about it’. There’s something wrong with them."

"Of course, Trump’s claims in Ankara may simply be a fresh effort to demonstrate fox-like cunning and make Iran’s leaders fear that he’ll return to a hot war if they refuse to make the necessary concessions," Marks concluded. "But the Iranians are unlikely to believe him, and back at home Americans could quickly conclude that he has driven his own administration into a cul-de-sac from which no exit is possible. Trump can call the Iranians every name in the book, but with each insult they will conclude that they are the ones who are winning."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Trump says Iran war is 'testing' if NATO will be there for the US

President Donald Trump dissed NATO after arriving in Turkey on Tuesday for the summit.

Taking questions from the press, Trump sang the praises of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who, he said, he saw a building named after as he arrived. But it was only a precursor to Trump's NATO bashing after being asked about further troop draw-downs in Europe.

"Well, we're gonna see. I was very disappointed with NATO and frankly if it weren't held in Turkey where my friend happens to be a very strong leader, a very strong, uh, person — it's possible that I wouldn't have attended," Trump said of the summit. "I felt I had to attend because of the fact that, you know, he's gone all out. It's a big thing to have NATO come to Turkey or any place else. It's a big thing."

He then pivoted back to talking about other members of NATO, saying, "we weren't treated well because we did something in Iran. We don't need anybody's help. I didn't even want their help. But before I asked they said they wouldn't be there. And we've invested trillionw of dollars in NATO. Why? To protect European countries — and Canada, et cetera. But to protect people, countries from, generally speaking, it used to be the Soviet Union. Now it's Russia and I say that's fine, but you would think that they'd be very willing to do something to help us."

Trump said that it wasn't the case, singling out the U.K., in particular, and bashing outgoing Prime Minister Kier Starmer.

"I guess he's no longer there, maybe because of this," Trump claimed without evidence. "It was a very unpopular thing he did. He said, no, we'll help after the war is over. I said, I don't need that kind of help. We didn't need any help at all."

Trump then told the reporters that the Iran war was a test for NATO that they failed.

"And in a way, I was testing people. I was testing to see whether or not they'd be there, because I've long said that we help them, but I'm not sure that they'd be there for usl" said Trump. "And Italy turned us down, and Germany turned us down, and France turned us down. And that's okay. But, you know, why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars and they're not there for us. We've always been there for them."


From Your Site Articles

Fox News reporter confronts Trump with his own words on Iran about-face

On Wednesday at a press conference during the G7 summit in France, President Donald Trump’s hypocrisy was laid bare when Fox News reporter Peter Doocy quoted Trump's own previous statement regarding Iran, resulting in an embarrassing exchange.

“A wise man once said in January of 2020,” said Doocy, “Iran never won a war but never lost a negotiation.”

“Who said that?” asked the president.

“Donald Trump,” Doocy revealed.

“That's what I thought you were going to say,” said Trump.

Doocy continued: “So how do you go back to the United States and convince a skeptical American public that this deal is a win here?”

From there, Trump launched into a solid two-minute-long rant that briefly touched on Iran before abruptly shifting to his war with the media.

“They lost militarily? Okay,” he began before stammering through a muddled assertion that, even if Iran said, “‘Praise be to Allah, Donald Trump is the greatest president ever. We totally concede. We totally give up. This war is over. We have failed,’ the New York Times and CNN — and a couple of others are not all that dishonest — they'd say Iran had a great victory. Okay? They practically do that.”

From there Trump diverged from discussion of Iran to focus on attacking the press, saying, “We need a fair press. That's why they're all doing so badly, because they lost credibility. When I win in a landslide and I had 93 percent bad press — they take good stories about me and make them bad. The media has so little credibility that the people voted for me.”

Before turning Trump’s words back at him, Doocy had begun their exchange with questions about the $300 billion payment that is rumored to be part of the peace deal.

“Only if they're doing things right,” Trump had responded, repeating the phrase three more times. The president went on to justify the fund by pointing out how much destruction the U.S. had caused in Iran, before shifting tone and saying, “So, uh, they have to behave themselves. If they're not behaving, they get hit again. You know, they'll be hit again because we can do it very easily.”

He went on to say how much he appreciates that Russian President Vladimir Putin has remained “totally neutral” in the war, even though his own officials have previously asserted that Russia helped Iran target U.S. forces.

Doocy then asked about reports that the U.S. would allow Iran to access its frozen assets.

“Well, the unfreezing, it's an easy one to answer,” explained Trump. “We have taken a lot of their money… It's not our money. It's their money. And we froze it at a certain point in time. I guess we're going to have to give it back.”

While on the campaign trail in 2015, he frequently claimed that former President Obama had “sent Boeing 757s over there, loaded with cash” to bribe Iran into joining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the “nuclear deal” Trump ended upon entering office. In fact, the Obama administration had allowed Iran to retrieve $1.7 billion in unfrozen assets. The Trump deal provides Iran nearly 200 times that amount.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Republicans warn Trump deal gives Iran something not even Biden was willing to do

Since it was announced on Sunday that the U.S. and Iran had struck a peace deal, experts have found no shortage of shortcomings in the agreement. Now, reporters and Republican lawmakers are pointing out that confusing aspects of the deal may not only provide Iran with a major gift, but represent a major betrayal of President Donald Trump’s own much-vaunted policies regarding the adversary.

This is according to Punchbowl News senior congressional reporter Andrew Desiderio in response to an assertion by Politico senior foreign affairs correspondent Nahl Toosi. After listening in on Trump officials’ call regarding the Iran deal, Toosi declared he was “in some ways more confused now than before.” He went on to list several aspects of the call that didn’t add up, but one point stood out in particular.

As he explained, “They do not seem to have a good grasp of U.S. sanctions law. They laid out the possibility of a $300 billion investment fund for Iran. And one said at one point that ‘the sanctions relief is not tied specifically to any particular conduct. It's tied generally to them behaving more appropriately, and obviously the thing that we care the most about is the nuclear program.’ But sanctions are specific to particular conduct.”

In other words, Trump officials claim that, in order to pay Iran $300 billion — the legality of which depends on the reduction of sanctions — it is going to relieve sanctions based on the vague concept of good behavior rather than specific actions. This is a problem, however, because the sanctions — which were set in place by Congress — are tied to specific actions. So the White House’s claims in this regard are either illegal or nonsensical.

And according to Desiderio, it gets even more muddled as “many Republicans have pointed out to me that this type of sanctions relief likely requires the IRGC to be de-listed as a terrorist organization under U.S. law. As someone who covered the Rob Malley-led Senate briefings in 2022, not even the [former President Joe] Biden admin was willing to do this.”

This refers to the Islamic Republican Guard Corps, the nation’s top military body, which has been listed as a terror group since Trump deemed it so in 2019. Such a designation raises restrictions on what kind of resources can be provided to it. For Trump to backtrack on this policy — a move his administration bragged about vocally at the time — not only suggests the failure of his foreign policy, but opens the Iranian regime to trade and support it’s been denied for nearly a decade while lending it greater political legitimacy.

The harms raised by de-listing the IRGC as a terror group are so widely understood that, as Desiderio noted, not even Biden — who overturned huge swaths of Trump’s foreign policy — would make the change. Furthermore, this move would not only clash with U.S. allies in the EU — which declared the IRGC a terrorist organization after it massacred somewhere between 6,000 and 35,000 protesters in January — but also contradict one of the administration’s other many suggested justifications for the war: protecting the Iranian people from its government.

And as Toosi noted, there were several other contradictions revealed in the White House call. As he explained, “They seemed to act as if the US had won this confrontation, whereas the Iranians seem to think they have the upper hand.” Officials asserted that troops would remain in the region en masse even though the deal calls for reductions. And they suggested that the new Iranian leadership was eager to give up nuclear capabilities, claiming that it was the previous Supreme Leader who had held up such a plan, which is the opposite of what most analysts believe. Then there was their seeming total ignorance regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, which Obama struck, then Trump tanked.

“They said ‘one of the really cool things and interesting things about this entire process is that we actually have a direct relationship with a number of people at the highest levels of the Iranian government. That really hasn't happened in 47 years of our relationship with Iran,'” posted Toosi. “This is not a huge thing, but it suggests they haven't really done their research on US-Iran relations. (See: JCPOA talks.)...Why do I suspect they haven't really studied the JCPOA and Iran-US history? Because of statements like this: ‘If you go back to the JCPOA, the Supreme Leader just doesn't sign these agreements.’ But nobody signed the JCPOA. It was a political arrangement, not a signed accord.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Trump's Iran 'deal' is already falling apart

The very first words announcing President Donald Trump's latest "deal" to conclude the war on Iran -- which will reportedly be signed on Friday -- were entirely false.

"The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete," the president proclaimed on his Truth Social site on Sunday evening. "Congratulations to all!"

But the agreement, whose details remain entirely opaque and disputed by all parties, is far from complete -- if "complete" is meant to indicate that Trump has achieved any of the stated objectives for which he expended hundreds of billions of dollars, at least 15 American lives, untold thousands of Iranian civilian deaths, and severe damage to the world economy and this nation's international standing.

Instead, what Iranian officials have called a "memorandum of understanding" merely extends for two months the current ceasefire (which hasn't actually curtailed kinetic hostilities in the region) while the United States and Iran resume negotiations over curtailing Tehran's nuclear programs, the alleged objective of this war.

No honest analyst believes that Trump or his inept negotiators will achieve more restrictions on Iranian nuclear development than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action -- the multilateral agreement that he discarded in 2018 merely because it was signed by his predecessor, former President Barack Obama. Amid the torrent of leaks and comments about this renewed ceasefire, what can be detected is a strong suggestion that this is in fact a far worse deal than Obama got, from the American standpoint -- and a far more lucrative outcome for the Iranians.

Unless the Iranian news agencies are lying just as brazenly as Trump always does, the Tehran dictatorship will collect tens of billions of dollars in previously frozen funds during the 60-day negotiation period. The Trump administration's response has come in the form of nondenial denials, and it now appears that those previously unavailable billions will be exchanged mainly for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. That reopening is the only aspect of the mooted "deal" that both sides agree will happen, merely resolving a crisis that Trump and his Israeli partner Benjamin Netanyahu provoked when they initiated this conflict. In short, a return to the status quo ante, aside from all that squandered blood and treasure and honor.

Of course the gradual resumption of ship traffic in the Persian Gulf won't actually permanently resolve anything, because the Iranians will still be able to close the strait whenever they choose -- a commercial and diplomatic superpower that they can now exercise at will, entirely due to the blundering of Trump, his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, his national security adviser Marco Rubio and the other nimrods in his cabinet.

Beyond that, we have no idea how or whether Trump's low-wattage diplomatic team will negotiate a credible agreement that restricts Iran's nuclear development with any force, as the JCPOA actually did. The likelihood of that occurring within the next two months seems vanishingly small, since the JCPOA talks required many months and intellectual skills that the Trump gang simply doesn't possess.

Even now, however, we can measure what Trump is doing against what Obama did: If the Iranians get $10 billion, or perhaps even $24 billion, to reopen the strait, without any substantial restrictions on their nuclear program, that will represent more than 10 times the amount of money Tehran received after signing the JCPOA. In other words, Trump has sold out cheap to end this pointless war -- and the rest of us will pay the price.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Is Trump putting American troops in danger with his Iran policy?

Is Trump putting American troops in danger with his Iran policy?

From Your Site Articles

Trump threatens to 'completely decimate' Iran in late-night post

President Donald Trump late Friday night escalated threats against Iran, posting on Truth Social around 11:20 p.m. that he had already ordered military action should Tehran attempt to assassinate him.

"1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran," Trump wrote, "with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!"

The inflammatory posts appeared to respond to a Wall Street Journal report Thursday that Israeli intelligence had shared information with the U.S. suggesting Iran developed a new assassination plot against Trump. Iran has repeatedly vowed retaliation for Trump's 2020 assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps General Qassem Soleimani during his first term.

Trump claimed military orders had already been issued. "Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran," he stated.

The threat comes as the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict faces renewed scrutiny. A CNN investigation last week revealed that senior U.S. military commanders had bypassed critical intelligence warnings that target data was severely outdated, leading to a strike that killed 168 children in an Iranian school. According to unnamed sources, the commanders made the decision to ignore the warnings for "expediency" at the war's outset, which directly contributed to the strike on the school.

Trump concluded his tirade with the phrase "PRAISE BE TO ALLAH!"

The U.S.-Iran war that began in early 2026 marked a major escalation in tensions between the two nations, stemming from longstanding hostilities that intensified after Trump's first term. The conflict was initiated by U.S. military strikes on Iranian targets, though the exact trigger remains contested. What began as targeted operations quickly expanded into sustained military engagement, with both sides exchanging strikes across multiple fronts.

The assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 during Trump's first presidency remained a flashpoint for Iranian retaliation efforts. Soleimani, one of Iran's most powerful military commanders, was killed in a targeted drone strike near Baghdad, an action that prompted widespread calls within Iran's leadership for revenge against Trump personally.

The current conflict has already resulted in significant civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. Beyond the school bombing that killed 168 children, reports indicate widespread destruction across Iranian cities. The U.S. military presence has expanded throughout the region, with increased naval deployments and air operations continuing throughout 2026.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict have largely stalled, with both sides hardening their positions. Iran has consistently denied assassination plots while accusing the U.S. of aggression, while the Trump administration has maintained a confrontational stance, threatening further military action and economic measures against Tehran.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.