Trump demanded a nuclear deal from Iran. What the media is writing
US President Donald Trump has demanded that Iran conclude a nuclear agreement in the coming days. At the same time, the US military continues to arrive in the Middle East, their numbers and composition indicate readiness for a multi-day military campaign. At the same time, the United Kingdom refused to allow the United States to use its air bases for strikes. How the world's media reacts to the escalating escalation is in the Izvestia digest.
Bloomberg: Trump said Iran has a few days left to conclude a deal.
US President Donald Trump has said that Iran has a maximum of 10-15 days to conclude an agreement on its nuclear program. Against this background, the Pentagon continues to deploy extensive forces in the Middle East, including two aircraft carriers, fighter jets and tanker aircraft. The scale of the displacement surpasses 2003 before the invasion of Iraq and overshadows the military buildup that Trump ordered off the coast of Venezuela.
Bloomberg
"Either we make a deal, or it will be an unpleasant event for them," Trump told reporters on board the presidential plane on Thursday. Speaking about the timing, Trump noted that, in his opinion, 10-15 days is "practically" the "maximum" period that he will allow to extend the negotiations. "I think this time will be enough," he said.
Although the United States is unlikely to deploy ground troops, the build-up indicates that Trump reserves the right to launch a sustained campaign of strikes that will last for many days, in cooperation with Israel. The president is also considering the possibility of a limited strike at an early stage, designed to force Tehran to the negotiating table. The question remains whether Iran will be able to meet Trump's demands and whether Trump will feel by deploying so much military equipment in the region that he will be forced to use it rather than retreat.
The Washington Post: It looks like Trump is ready to attack Iran
According to current and former U.S. officials, the Trump administration is ready to launch a large-scale military offensive against Iran, despite the risks of American casualties and U.S. involvement in a protracted war. Warships led by the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford approached the Strait of Gibraltar, making an attack possible within a few days.
The Washington Post
According to officials, the administration wants everyone to know that it is building up combat power in the region. The president has also publicly raised the possibility of overthrowing Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a longtime opponent of the United States, suggesting last week that it would be "the best thing that could happen" if Iran had new leaders.
It remains unclear whether Trump has approved military action. As some have pointed out, one of the factors that should be considered is the ongoing Winter Olympic Games in Italy. It is expected that some American troops will be withdrawn from bases in the Middle East if the Pentagon completes preparations for combat operations. Some will be ordered to stay and defend their facilities from potential attack, while others are expected to move to safe locations in Europe or the United States. The Pentagon has taken similar precautions in the past.
The New York Times: Trump doesn't explain why he would attack Iran
When President George W. Bush began preparations for the invasion of Iraq, he traveled all over the country, arguing that Saddam Hussein's government and its weapons posed an unacceptable threat to the United States. He compared the urgency of the moment to the 1962 Caribbean crisis, saying inaction was "the riskiest of all options." Most of Bush's arguments turned out to be far-fetched, based on selective intelligence, and in some cases outright false claims.
The New York Times
But if Bush's arguments were false, then the arguments of President Trump, who has to decide whether to launch a second major military offensive against Iran in less than a year, contain virtually no arguments. With two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of fighter jets, bombers and tanker planes concentrated within Iran's range, Trump is threatening a new attack. He does this without providing an assessment of the urgency of the threat or explaining why he needs to launch another strike after claiming that the nuclear facilities he targeted have been "destroyed."
Although Trump is mainly focused on Iran's nuclear weapons program, at various times he and his aides have made a number of other arguments in favor of military action: protecting protesters, destroying an arsenal of missiles to attack Israel, and ending support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Then the question arises whether military force, the very hammer that Trump is so quickly resorting to, will be able to achieve these goals at all. Most of Iran's bomb-making uranium has already been buried after the June strikes. And it's unclear how the airstrikes will immediately help protesters across the country or convince Iran to stop funding proxies.
CNN: UK blocks use of bases needed for strikes on Iran
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer did not respond to Trump's request to allow American troops to use British air bases during a preemptive strike on Iran, saying it could violate international law. Starmer refused to use Fairford Air Base in England and Diego Garcia Island, a British overseas territory in the Indian Ocean. These two bases have long served as the most important foreign military staging points for operations away from home, with Diego Garcia being a key airfield for the American heavy bomber fleet.
CNN
The UK is concerned that allowing the United States to use the bases "would be a violation of international law, which does not distinguish between the state carrying out the attack and those who support it, if the latter are 'aware of the circumstances of the unlawful act contrary to international law.'"
US requests for the use of British bases for operational purposes have historically been considered on an individual basis, with the exact criteria not disclosed for security reasons in accordance with long-standing agreements. Neither Diego Garcia nor Fairford were used during last year's June B-2 bomber strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. They flew back and forth, lasting about 37 hours, from their base in Missouri. However, analysts expect that any new U.S. attack on Iran could become a much longer campaign and require additional infrastructure.
Financial Times: Significant US military forces are gathering around Iran
The United States has concentrated a huge military force in the Middle East after President Donald Trump warned Iran that a deal must be concluded within a "maximum" of 15 days, otherwise "something bad will happen." According to former Pentagon officials and national security experts, the US has enough forces and assets to carry out a multi-week air campaign, and their scale and speed make an attack more likely.
Financial Times
Dozens of tanker planes and transport planes have crossed the Atlantic this week. According to Flightradar24, 39 air tankers have been relocated closer to the potential theater of operations over the past three days. Another 29 heavy transport aircraft, such as the C-17 Globemaster III, flew to Europe. This month, six flights to Europe started from Fort Hood, where the 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade is stationed. It is equipped with Patriot and THAAD systems that can protect allies and the US armed forces from missile and air attacks. One C-17 aircraft from Fort Hood went to Jordan.
Analysis of recent satellite images has confirmed that the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is off the coast of Oman. On Wednesday afternoon, the signal of the automatic identification system of the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier strike group was recorded off the west coast of Africa. There are thousands of military personnel and dozens of fighter jets on board both aircraft carriers. According to former Pentagon official Mark Cancian, the countdown to any U.S. strikes will begin when the USS Gerald Ford takes up position.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
