war

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Tuesday that Iran wants to “make a deal” with the United States to end the war in the Middle East, saying that negotiations are ongoing with the conflict in its fourth week.

Iran has publicly denied that talks are happening. But Trump told reporters during an Oval Office event that negotiations are underway and being led by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“I’d like to think we are in a good bargaining position,” Trump said.

Trump said he remains skeptical of Tehran’s intentions, saying he doesn’t necessarily “trust them,” but indicated that he is encouraged to continue talks after receiving what he described as a “very big present worth a tremendous amount of money” from Iran.

“I am not going to tell you what the present is,” Trump told reporters. But he said it was a “significant prize” related to “oil and gas” that signaled to him that he was “dealing with the right people.”

Conflicting messages over the diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran come as Pakistan has offered to host peace talks in Islamabad aimed at ending the hostilities, which have killed more than 2,400 people, further destabilized the Middle East and disrupted global oil markets.

“Pakistan welcomes and fully supports ongoing efforts to pursue dialogue to end the WAR in Middle East, in the interest of peace and stability in region and beyond,” Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote on X.

Any potential talks between the United States and Iran would face significant challenges. Key U.S. demands — particularly related to Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs — remain difficult to resolve, even though Trump claims Iran has already agreed to concessions related to its ability to have nuclear weapons.

It is also unclear who within Iran’s leadership would be willing to negotiate, especially as Israel has vowed to keep targeting Iranian leaders after killing several already.

Trump has not publicly responded to Pakistan’s offer to act as an in-between for the United States and Iran. He also sidestepped a question about a New York Times report that said the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has been pushing him to continue the war against Iran.

The president instead expressed confidence in his senior advisors handling the negotiations with Iran. He did not specify who U.S. officials are engaging with, but insisted they are “talking to the right people.”

When asked by a reporter why he had agreed to a cease-fire with the Iranians, Trump said: “They are talking to us, and they’re making sense.”

As the talks continue, Trump said that the United States is “way ahead of schedule” in its war with Iran, a nation that he said was so battered that it had no choice but to come to the negotiating table. Iran, however, showed on Tuesday that it still has firepower as it fired a new wave of missiles at Israel, Iraq and other gulf nations.

Iran fired at least 10 waves of missiles at Israel. In Tel Aviv, a missile with a 220-pound warhead slammed into a street in the city center, blowing out windows of an apartment building and sending smoke billowing. Four people suffered minor wounds, rescue worker Yoel Moshe said.

In Kuwait, power lines were hit by air defense shrapnel, causing partial electricity outages for several hours. Bahrain said it was attacked with missiles and drones, and that an Emirati soldier serving with its forces had been killed. The United Arab Emirates said air defense systems responded to similar attacks, and Saudi Arabia said it destroyed Iranian drones targeting its oil-rich Eastern Province.

Israel pounded Beirut’s southern suburbs, saying that it was targeting infrastructure used by the Iran-linked Hezbollah militant group, and carried out an extensive series of strikes on Iranian “production sites,” without providing more information.

On Tuesday, Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel intended to seize Lebanon’s south Lebanon to a create a “security zone.”

Speaking at an assessment meeting with the Israeli military’s chief of staff, Katz said the military would control up to the Litani River, a waterway that runs through south Lebanon, meeting the Mediterranean some 20 miles north of the border with Israel.

“Hundreds of thousands of residents of southern Lebanon who evacuated northward will not return south of the Litani River until security for the residents of the north [of Israel] is ensured,” he said.

His words were the clearest articulation yet of Israel’s plans in Lebanon, going far beyond the “limited and targeted ground operations” announced by the Israeli military earlier this month.

Lebanon, meanwhile, took steps to undercut Tehran’s influence in the country and its support for Hezbollah. In a statement released on X on Tuesday, Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi said the government was expelling Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Reza Shibani and declared him persona non grata. He gave Shibani until Sunday to leave the country.

Hezbollah condemned the move and called it a “grave national and strategic mistake.” Political figures aligned with the group also issued public statements urging the Iranian ambassador to ignore the decision.

In Washington, Trump said he would like to find a resolution that would avoid further casualties and damage to critical infrastructure in the region.

“If we can end this without more lives being down, without knocking out $10-billion electric plants that are brand new and the apple of their eye, I’d like to be able to do that,” he said. “But they can’t have certain things.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, meanwhile, told reporters that he would rather “negotiate with bombs.”

“The president has made it clear that you will not have a nuclear weapon. The War Department agrees,” Hegseth said. “Our job is to ensure that, and so we’re keeping our hand on that throttle, as long and as hard as is necessary to ensure the interests of the United States of America are achieved on that battlefield.”

His comments came as thousands of U.S. Marines were on their way to the region, raising speculation that the U.S. may try to seize Kharg Island, which is vital to Iran’s oil network. The U.S. bombed the Persian Gulf island more than a week ago, hitting its defenses but saying it had left oil infrastructure intact.

The Pentagon declined to comment on the deployment.

Ceballos and Quinton reported from Washington. Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

Trita Parsi, Vice President of the Quincy Institute, argues that Iran is unlikely to agree to end the war without sanctions relief, while there is little sign Donald Trump is willing to offer meaningful concessions, adding that a deal remains unlikely until then.

US media is reporting the Trump administration has proposed a temporary ceasefire and a 15-point plan to end the war on Iran. The reports emerge as Trump claims the US is already talking to Iranian officials – a claim Iran has vehemently denied.

United States President Donald Trump is insistent that “productive” negotiations have taken place with Iran to end the war he launched with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month ago. The major problem with that narrative is that Iran’s top officials have repeatedly denied it.

Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides, it is hard to know who to believe. But an analysis of what each side has to gain from any negotiations – and a potential end to the conflict – could bring more clarity.

Trump’s comments that there were “major points of agreement” after “very good” talks with an unnamed “top” Iranian figure came as stock markets opened in the US for the start of the trading week. The five-day deadline he gave for a positive response from Iran also happens to coincide with the end of the trading week.

Many have cynically noted that timing, especially as it comes after a two-week period in which oil prices have fluctuated in line with events in the Middle East, leading to a high of about $120 a barrel last week.

Trump’s talk of negotiations may also give time for more US troops to arrive in the Middle East, if Washington decides to conduct some form of ground invasion of Iranian territory.

Among those questioning Trump’s motives was the man believed by some to be the senior Iranian official Trump was referencing: the Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote on social media.

The impact on stock markets and oil prices is not just relevant to the US and Trump, but also to Iran. However, for Tehran, the benefit comes in the damage the war is doing to the US and global economies.

The Iranian state wants the US to feel economic pain from the war, as a means of deterrence for any future Israeli or US attack on Iran.

Therefore, as much as it is in the US interest to play up talk of negotiations in order to calm the markets, it is also in Iran’s interest to downplay any talk to do the exact opposite, and not give the Trump administration any breathing space.

US benefits?

Consequently, both sides have their own narratives on negotiations, and public comments will do little to inform us as to whether those negotiations are really taking place, or in what form they may be.

That instead leads us into what each side has to gain from negotiations, and an actual end to the war at the current stage.

Trump appears to have underestimated the consequences of the conflict that he launched with Netanyahu on February 28, and the ability of the Iranian state to withstand the attacks against it without collapsing.

“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East … Nobody expected that,” he said last week, adding that even “the greatest experts” didn’t believe that.

Leaving aside that experts – including US intelligence officials – had repeatedly made those warnings, reality has now made Trump aware of the consequences he had previously ignored.

While some allies and supporters may continue to push him to plough on with the conflict, Trump has previously shown himself amenable to cutting deals to extricate himself from difficult situations, and it is not far-fetched to see the benefits of doing so in this instance.

The US president has already ordered his government to issue temporary sanctions waivers on some Iranian oil, in an effort to calm oil prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and it will not be lost on Iran that the waivers have come as a result of their policy to expand the conflict to the wider Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war was already unpopular in the US – and now even more so, as consumers see the impact on petrol prices and potentially other areas of the economy, all in the run-up to congressional elections later this year, in which Trump’s Republicans are likely to do poorly.

Trump, therefore, has the options of extending this war – and suffering the economic and political cost, or ending it – and facing the criticism that he was unable to finish what he termed as a “short-term excursion”.

The Iranian perspective

But whatever Trump wants to do, the decision is not totally in his hands. Iran, attacked for the second time in less than a year, now appears to have less of an incentive to end the war without the establishment of an effective deterrent to another in the future.

Gone are the days of the telegraphed attacks on US assets and the slow climb up the escalation ladder. From the outset of the current war, it was clear that Iran had changed its tactics and was not as interested in restraint.

It is now arguably in the Iranian state’s benefit to drag out the conflict and inflict more suffering on the region, if it wants to ensure its survival.

There may also be a belief that interceptor stocks in Israel are running low, allowing Iran to strike targets more effectively. The thinking – particularly among the hardliners who now appear to be in the ascendancy in Iran – will be that now is not the time to stop, and allow those interceptor stocks to replenish.

And yet, Iran is suffering. More than 1,500 people have been killed across the country, according to the government. Infrastructure has been heavily damaged, and the power grid could be next. Relations with Gulf neighbours have nosedived, and, after repeated Iranian attacks, are unlikely to return to their previous levels after the conflict.

More moderate voices in Iran will look at that and think that things could easily get worse. They can argue that some form of deterrence has been achieved, and that the time is now ripe to talk. And if they can get some concessions – such as a promise of no future attacks, or greater authority in the Strait of Hormuz – they may decide that the time is right to make a deal.

Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, ex-IRGC commander, to replace late Ali Larijani as chief of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

Iran has named Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, a former commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as the successor to Ali Larijani, head of the country’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), who was killed in a US-Israeli air strike earlier this month.

President Masoud Pezeshkian’s deputy of communications announced the appointment on X on Tuesday.

The SNSC, formally chaired by Pezeshkian, coordinates security and foreign policy and includes top military, intelligence and government officials, in addition to representatives of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

Zolghadr, who served in the 1980s war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, went on to become head of the IRGC’s joint staff for eight years and then deputy commander-in-chief of the elite force for another eight years.

In 2005, he was named deputy interior minister for security and police in the government of then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a move that was seen at the time as bolstering the IRGC’s influence in politics.

Since 2023, he has been the secretary of the Expediency Council, a powerful body that plays both an advisory and mediating role between Iran’s various power structures and the supreme leader.

Zolghadr’s new position consolidates the IRGC’s growing clout in Iran amid growing uncertainty regarding decision-making at the top of the system. Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen in public since he succeeded his assassinated father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in early March.

Larijani, one of the most prominent non-clerical figures in Iranian politics, was killed last Tuesday in a week that saw the war spiralling throughout the region, upending global energy markets and roiling the world economy.

On Tuesday, the war showed no sign of de-escalation after US President Donald Trump’s claim that he was speaking to an unidentified “top person”, as he extended by five days a deadline to hit Iran’s power plants.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said “no negotiations” were under way, accusing Trump of seeking “to manipulate the financial and oil markets”.

Rescuers have pulled a man alive from the rubble after US-Israeli strikes hit a residential area on the outskirts of Tehran, the Iranian Red Crescent said. The US and Israel have continued to strike Iran, despite President Trump’s claims of diplomatic progress.

In March 2003, a million people took to the streets of London to oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq. Seeing straight through the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, protesters warned the British government in no uncertain terms: This action would trigger a spiral of misery, hatred and death.

More than 20 years on, most people now recognise the Iraq war for what it was: a catastrophic mistake that fuelled a string of subsequent conflicts and instability. The United Kingdom had followed the United States into an illegal war – and more than a million Iraqi men, women and children paid the price.

Unfortunately, not everybody has learned the lessons from the past. It has been almost a month since the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran. More than 1,400 Iranians and more than 1,000 Lebanese people have been killed.

In seeking to justify the bombing, US President Donald Trump spoke of the need to eliminate “imminent threats from the Iranian regime”, whose “menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world”. He said the goal was to make sure Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon”. Sound familiar?

The first casualty of war is the truth, so let us get the facts straight: These are lies that have been peddled to justify an illegal and unprovoked war. As the National Counterterrorism Center Director, Joe Kent, said in his resignation letter last week, Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation” and that it was “clear that [the US] started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby”.

There is only one nuclear-armed state in the Middle East: Israel. Next month’s UN Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons would have been the perfect place to call for an end to the nuclear arms race. A diplomatic solution was possible, but the US and Israel chose war instead. In doing so, they have jeopardised the safety of humankind around the world. So, too, have those nations that have decided to lend support to their war of aggression.

Shortly after the attacks on Iran began, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gave the US permission to use British military bases for strikes on Iranian missile sites. Last week, his government agreed to let the US use British bases to strike Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz.

The UK could have followed in the footsteps of Spain and said, “No way, absolutely not. We will not be involved in this illegal war in any way whatsoever.” Instead, it has dragged itself into another catastrophic conflict.

Astonishingly, the prime minister still maintains that the British government is not involved – a line that has been regurgitated by many across our media. He says the UK is allowing its sites to be used only for “defensive” strikes. What nonsense.

The reality is, if a bomber takes off from Royal Air Force base Fairford and bombs targets in Iran, we are involved in that act of aggression. If civilians die, will their families stop mourning when they are told that they were bombed for “defensive purposes”? No matter how Starmer dresses it up, he cannot change the truth: The UK is directly involved in this war.

Mark my words: This is a historic mistake that jeopardises the safety of us all. That’s why, earlier this month, I tabled a bill in the House of Commons that would require parliamentary approval for any British involvement in military action. That includes the use of British bases by other nations.

So far, the prime minister has refused to pass this legislation. With no debate, no discussion and no vote, he is dragging Britain into another disastrous illegal war.

Just like with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, today, those of us who oppose the war on Iran are accused of giving succour to authoritarian regimes and leaders. Whatever one thinks of the governments of various places, there is no basis in law for an attack to bring about regime change. There is no basis in history that bombing from the sky would bring about human rights either.

Trump couldn’t care less about people’s human rights. Whether it’s in Iran, Venezuela or Cuba, he is interested in one thing and one thing only: seizing resources and political control around the world.

If the UK cares about international law, it would be standing up to Trump, not bending over backwards to appease him.

The story of US-led foreign interventions is a story of chaos, instability and misery. How many more of these catastrophic failures do we need before we learn the lesson? And what will it take for the UK to finally defend a consistent, ethical foreign policy based on international law, sovereignty and peace?

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

March 24 (UPI) — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth plans to request $200 billion in funding from Congress as the cost of the United States’ war with Iran grows.

The request comes on top of an already record-setting Pentagon budget passed by Congress last year. Transparency over how funds are being spent continues to dwindle, experts told UPI.

As of March 15, 16 days into the war, it had cost the United States about $12 billion, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said in an interview on Face the Nation.

Linda Bilmes, a Harvard Kennedy School professor and former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration, told UPI the reported cost is “just the very tip of the huge iceberg.”

“The $11 billion or whatever it is that they’re quoting is just the immediate operational spend in terms of munitions and fuel and such in the first couple weeks,” Bilmes said. “That doesn’t cover any kind of medium-term expenditures around reset, repair, resupply, replenishment of weapons and systems and munitions and so forth, which is a much bigger number.”

“We’ve probably spent at least $40 billion if you bring into account already everything that has been spent and the fact that it needs to be restocked in the inventory,” Bilmes said.

There are also longer-term costs yet to come, such as the lifetime disability benefits that some 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East will be eligible to receive.

“The vast majority of them have been exposed to toxins, contamination from oil fumes, formaldehyde, benzine, all of these things that are in the air,” Bilmes said.

In a 2011 study, Bilmes estimated that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs would pay up to $1 trillion in benefits to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the subsequent 30 to 40 years. In 2021, that estimate increased to $2.5 trillion as the war in Afghanistan continued until August of that year.

During a press briefing last week, Hegseth said the $200 billion request to Congress would be to “ensure that our ammunition is refilled and not just refilled but above and beyond.”

“That’s like the [gross domestic product] of Hungary, the GDP of New Zealand. Medium-sized countries have GDPs the size of just this increase,” Bilmes said. “That’s $1,500 for every household in America.”

The cost of war continues to increase for U.S. taxpayers. The U.S. military is using some advanced weapons technologies, such as AI-powered systems in combat for the first time in the Iran war. Defense contractors are preparing to increase their production of weapons for the United States four times over, President Donald Trump said following a meeting with several earlier this month.

“They have agreed to quadruple production of the ‘Exquisite Class’ weaponry in that we want to reach, as rapidly as possible, the highest levels of quantity,” Trump posted on social media on March 6. “Expansion began three months prior to the meeting and plants and production of many of these weapons are already underway.”

Trump did not clarify which companies were a part of the meeting, nor did he define what “exquisite class weaponry” is.

Bill Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told UPI it is becoming increasingly challenging to analyze defense spending as the Pentagon has become less transparent.

Hartung’s research focuses on the arms industry and the U.S. military budget. He is the former director of the Arms and Security Program and the Center for International Policy and co-director of its Sustainable Defense Task Force.

When the United States began sending defense aid to Ukraine in 2022, the government would periodically report what weapons it was sending and the types of training missions it was involved in. That is yet to take place for the war in Iran.

“In this war, really other than a leak, they really haven’t put out much in the way of justification or what exactly is being spent,” Hartung said. “They haven’t put out even a detailed budget this year the way they normally would. Normally an administration that’s been in power a while puts it out in early February. Now, we’re kind of flying blind as to what it’s exactly all going to.”

Transparency has waned from the Pentagon over the course of years. Funding put toward defense in last year’s budget reconciliation was marked in broad categories, rather than a more detailed, itemized budget.

Hartung said it was not the “normal budget process” and that hearings over the Pentagon’s budget lacked the same level of substance and oversight of years passed.

In July, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense published its budget request for program acquisitions for the 2026 fiscal year. It requested $179.1 billion dedicated to research, development, test and evaluation of major weapon systems, $205.2 billion for procurement and $961.7 billion for total Department of Defense research and procurement. This accounts for about 40% of the department’s total funding.

The reconciliation bill passed by Congress added $150 billion in new defense spending, increasing the department’s total budget to more than $1 trillion.

Among the biggest expenditures approved by Congress were more than $25 billion for munitions and supply chain resiliency, $24 billion for integrated air and missile defense, $29 billion for shipbuilding, and $14 billion for enhancing resources for nuclear forces.

About $10 million was approved for department oversight.

The longer the war continues, the greater the cost will be to the United States. Then comes the matter of reconstruction.

The United States has historically been involved in reconstruction efforts following wars it was engaged in, including World War II and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The U.S. government spent about $141 billion on reconstruction in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2021, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported.

The war with Iran has spread beyond its borders already. As of Monday, Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, said that at least 40 energy sites have been damaged in the war, including sites belonging to U.S. allies.

Whether and to what extent the United States would be involved in reconstruction efforts in Iran and among affected allies is another variable that will not be known until the fighting stops.

Beyond the budget implications is the human cost of war. Hartung said, depending on the decision to put U.S. troops on the ground in Iran, the toll paid by service members could be larger yet. At least 13 U.S. troops have already been killed in action.

The Iran Health Ministry reported earlier this month that more than 1,200 civilians have been killed. Among them are at least 165 people killed in a strike on an elementary school for girls in Minab, Iraq. Many of the victims in the school bombing were children.

A preliminary investigation by the U.S. military has found that the United States is likely responsible for the deadly strike on the school by a Tomahawk missile on Feb. 28. The United States is the only country involved in the war that uses Tomahawk missiles.

The cost of the operation that killed the victims at the elementary school likely exceeds $1 million. A Tomahawk missile costs about $2 million.

“It could have been a million or two to hit that one target,” Hartung said. “They do have a small drone-like system they’ve been using that’s like $35,000 each but I don’t know exactly what they used. A cruise missile’s $2 million but then some of the other bombs could be a few hundred thousand but it’s remarkable how much even one strike can cost. Some of the planes are thousands or tens of thousands an hour.”

Unlike the Vietnam and Korean War and those that preceded them, the United States does not pay for its modern war efforts by raising taxes. Instead, it incurs an ever-growing debt that now accounts for about 17% of the government’s budget in fiscal year 2026.

Bilmes is writing about the changing approach to funding war in her upcoming book The Ghost Budget: Paying for America’s Wars. It is due to be released in the fall.

“We’ve borrowed every penny that has been spent right now. We’re just adding to the debt,” Bilmes said.

As the United States takes on more debt to fund a growing defense budget, it has also cut taxes, reducing revenues.

“Arguably, our approach to this, in engaging in another war of choice, is positioning us closer to another major economic crisis,” Bilmes said.

Former NATO official William Alberque says 440 kg of missing Iranian uranium is blocking a US victory claim. He warns that despite strikes on Natanz Nuclear Facility, the risk of proliferation remains.

Iran has launched a round of missiles targeting Israel, causing damage and injuries in Tel Aviv, as uncertainty swirled over possible talks to end the three-week US-Israel war on Iran.

The missiles triggered air raid sirens in Israel on Tuesday, including in Tel Aviv, where gaping holes were torn through a multistorey apartment building. It was not immediately clear whether the damage was caused by a direct hit or debris from an interception.

Israel’s Magen David Adom emergency medical service said: “Six people were lightly injured at four different sites.”

Police in Tel Aviv said they were dealing with “several impact sites of munitions”.

Israel’s National Fire and Rescue Authority said the search was on for people trapped in one building in Tel Aviv, adding that civilians were found in a shelter in another damaged building.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military said on Tuesday that its jets carried out a wave of strikes in central Tehran on Monday, targeting key command centres, including facilities associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ intelligence arm and the Iranian Intelligence Ministry. It said more than 50 additional targets were hit overnight, including ballistic missile storage and launch sites.

The US-Israeli war on Iran has destroyed over 80,000 civilian units leaving many causalities, according to Iranian officials. Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi reports from a residential building hit in a recent attack.

Video shows the aftermath of an airstrike in Iraq’s Anbar province on a headquarters of the pro-Iran Popular Mobilisation Forces, where at least ten people were killed during a commanders’ meeting.

An Israeli attack has hit a petrol station in southern Lebanon, near the Rashidieh Camp for Palestinian refugees, triggering a huge explosion and fire. The Israeli army had issued forced displacement orders to residents.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps calls Trump a ‘deceitful American president’, saying his ‘contradictory behaviour will not make us lose sight of the battlefront’.

Schools and hospitals bombed; strikes on apartment buildings; energy facilities targeted and attacks on neighbouring states.

Have Israel, the United States and Iran broken international law in the war? Or what legal justification might they claim?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Geoffrey Nice – Human rights lawyer and former International Criminal Court prosecutor

Brian Finucane – Senior adviser with the US programme at the International Crisis Group and former legal adviser at the US State Department

Nicholas Tsagourias – Professor of international law at the University of Sheffield

Since Donald Trump entered the political fray, critics have opined that if he ever faced a direct confrontation with Iran as United States president, the result would be chaos, endless war, and global instability. They have been proven wrong once again.

Today, the world is witnessing the swift decisive assertion of US power that is leading to a clear military victory over a terrorist state that has long threatened US as well as global peace and security.

For too long, US foreign policy was dominated by hesitation disguised as sophistication. US presidents, Democrat and Republican, advocated for “containment”, “strategic patience”, and “measured responses”, while adversaries grew bolder and more brazen. Iran expanded its influence across the Middle East, funded proxy militias, threatened global energy supplies, and openly challenged Washington’s credibility by attacking US interests, personnel and assets.

Trump rejected the conventional Washington approach even before assuming public office. He never believed that endless negotiations or carefully worded diplomatic statements would deter a regime that only yields to power. His critics called it recklessness. What it actually was, was clarity.

Instead of drifting into another conventional decade-long war, Trump chose a simple formula: hit hard, hit fast, and make it clear that the US will not capitulate to threats.

Today, most of the foreign policy establishment still defines “victory” the way it did in the 20th century: overthrow the regime, occupy the country, and rebuild its government in our liking. That post-World War II and Cold War model worked in Europe, Asia and Latin America. It did not in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan proved that nation-building can be a futile endeavour.

Trump understands something Washington does not want to admit: the exercise of American power should not be to build democratic societies. It should be to eliminate threats.

From the outset, the Trump administration made clear that it was launching the attacks to control the outcome.

If Iran’s military leadership has been weakened, if its ability to threaten US forces and allies has been reduced, and if its nuclear ambitions have been significantly set back, then the mission has already succeeded, and it is time to end the war.

When Trump declares victory, he will not do it quietly. He will say it directly: America struck, America won, and America did so without engaging in another endless war.

Timing has always been one of Trump’s political talents. He understands momentum better than any of his predecessors of the past few decades did. If the military objectives have already been largely achieved, waiting months to say so would only weaken the message.

Declaring victory at the moment of peak strength sends a powerful signal — not just to Iran, but to the entire world.  It ratifies that the US has red lines again. It makes clear that threats will be met with force, not speeches. And most importantly, it declares that the US is once again confident enough to act decisively.

Critics on the American left will predictably label any Trump victory “premature” and his methods “illegal” and reckless. But their genuine discomfort with his success has more to do with the use of American firepower to achieve objectives that they believe can or should only be had through diplomacy and multilateral rather than unilateral actions.

Trump’s “America First” foreign policy builds on US President Ronald Reagan’s peace through strength mantra by being willing to pre-emptively exercise American might to demonstrate American resolve and deter adversaries. It has proven effective before, and it is proven effective again today.

It destroys the critics’ primary thesis — that American strength must always be restrained, that military power should be used cautiously, and that multilateral strategies are a prerequisite.

Trump’s Iran victory speech will not be lofty and replete with platitudes. It will be direct, simple, and unabashedly America First.

He will explain that the US acted because it had to do so. He will declare that the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran has been eliminated. He will say American lives were saved. And he will end by stating that the world is safer because of this sacrifice by the American people.

Through Trump’s America First foreign policy, the US will act decisively and unilaterally. It will not apologise for defending its interests. And it will prove that acting boldly can change the course of events in a matter of weeks, not years.

After decades of vacillation, Trump’s message to the world is simple: America’s back and American interests come first.

America did not need another endless war. It needed a president willing to act.

And that is exactly what it got.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Strikes on gas sites are now part of the US-Israel war with Iran. But its effect will echo far beyond the Gulf, hitting power, food, and prices worldwide. As gas supply shrinks and costs rise, who will feel it most, and how far could the shock spread?

In this episode: 

• Justin Dargin (@justindargin), Energy Expert, Middle East Council on Global Affairs

Episode credits:

This episode was produced by Marcos Bartolomé, Tamara Khandaker, Sarí el-Khalili, Chloe K. Li, Tuleen Barakat, Catherine Nouhan and our guest host, Kevin Hirten. It was edited by Sarí el-Khalili. Alex Roldan is our sound designer. 

The Take production team is Marcos Bartolomé, Sonia Bhagat, Spencer Cline, Sarí el-Khalili, Tamara Khandaker, Chloe K. Li, Alexandra Locke, Catherine Nouhan, Alex Roldan, and Noor Wazwaz. Our host is Malika Bilal. 

Our editorial intern is Tuleen Barakat. Our engagement producers are Adam Abou-Gad and Vienna Maglio. Andrew Greiner is lead of audience engagement. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhem. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. 

Connect with us:

@AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

Locals in northern India have a growing concern over essential resources like water, fuel and food, that have become costly due to the US-Israeli war on Iran. The conflict has brought implications on oil and gas prices, which has also affected bottled water and food costs.

United States President Donald Trump has shared a Truth Social video of a TV comedy skit showing a panicked United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer trying to avoid his call, on the same evening the two leaders spoke about the US-Israel war on Iran.

The skit, aired on the premiere of the new British version of Saturday Night Live (SNL), adapted from the long-running US show, shows Starmer, played by George Fouracres, panicking inside 10 Downing Street at the prospect of a call with Trump.

Starmer turns to a fake David Lammy, his deputy prime minister, and says, “What if Donald shouts at me?”

When Trump picks up the phone, Starmer immediately hangs up, asking why it is so difficult to talk to “that scary, scary, wonderful president”.

“Sir, just be honest and tell him we can’t send any more ships to the Strait of Hormuz,” Lammy says, the vital shipping lane effectively blocked by Iran since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

“I just want to keep him happy, Lammy. You don’t understand him like I do – I can change him,” Starmer says.

Trump did not post any comment alongside the video.

Trump has lashed out at his NATO allies, including Starmer, for not joining the US efforts to break the de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil passes. A week ago, he asked the UK to be more supportive of the US war efforts because Washington spends “a lot of money” on NATO.

The US president last week called the NATO countries “cowards” for their refusal to join the war. This, after European leaders rejected Trump’s demands ⁠to help ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

“Now that fight is militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to ⁠pay, but don’t want to help open ⁠the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices. So easy for them to do, with so ⁠little risk,” he wrote on the Truth Social platform.

The closure of the strait has sent oil prices soaring, creating the biggest energy crisis since the 1970s. On Sunday, Trump threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if it did not reopen the strait within 48 hours.

Trump-Starmer call

Separately, on Sunday evening, Starmer spoke with Trump to discuss escalating tensions in the Middle East, his office said in a statement. It was not clear if the call took place before or after Trump posted the SNL skit on Truth Social.

In a readout of the call, the Prime Minister’s Office said the two leaders focused on “the need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to resume global shipping” amid growing concerns over energy security and regional stability.

“They agreed that reopening the Strait of Hormuz was essential to ensure stability in the global energy market,” the statement said.

The leaders also agreed to remain in close contact as the situation develops and “to speak again soon”, it added.

On Monday, Starmer ⁠said there had been no assessment ⁠that mainland Britain was being targeted by Iran.

Starmer asserted that any ⁠attempt to reopen the Strait of Hormuz needed careful consideration and a ‌viable plan, and that his number one priority was to ‌protect ‌British interests and de-escalate.

‘Not Winston Churchill’

The US leader has repeatedly railed against Starmer since the start of the war, accusing him of not doing enough to support the US.

“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said earlier this month, after Starmer initially declined to let US warplanes use UK bases to strike Iran.

“I’m disappointed with Keir,” Trump has also said, slamming Starmer’s “big mistake”. “I like him, I think he’s a nice man, but I’m disappointed.”

On Friday, the UK government gave authorisation for the US to use its military bases to carry out strikes on Iranian missile sites that were attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Starmer initially rejected a US request to use British bases for the strikes on Iran, saying he needed to be satisfied that any military action was legal.

But the prime minister modified his stance after Iran conducted strikes on British allies across the Middle East, saying the US could use RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, a joint US-UK base in the Indian Ocean.