Donald Trump Archives - Page 5 of 37

Larijani: Iran Will Not Negotiate With The US

CrossFireArabia
March 2, 2026

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani affirmed that his country will not negotiate with the United States. He added that US president Donald Trump has plunged the region into chaos with his “false hopes.”

On Monday, Larijani asserted Iran will not negotiate with the United States, noting that Trump “has plunged the region into chaos with his ‘false hopes,’ and is now worried about further losses among American forces.”

In a post on his “X” account, Larijani argued Trump has transformed his “America First” slogan into “Israel First,” sacrificing American soldiers for Israel’s pursuit of power. He continued: “With delusional actions and new lies, Trump is once again making American soldiers and their families pay the price for his personality cult.”

He added: “Today, the Iranian people are defending themselves, and the Iranian armed forces did not initiate the invasion.”

These statements come in response to a report in the Wall Street Journal about an initiative by Larijani to resume talks with Washington, presented through Omani mediators.

These statements also come amidst the ongoing US-Israeli aggression against Iran, which has targeted large areas of the country and resulted in the martyrdom of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a number of other Iranian leaders. Almayadeen

News

Ayatollah Khamenei is Alive & Well – FM Araghchi

CrossFireArabia
February 28, 2026

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Saturday said that supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is still alive “as far as I know,” in an interview with NBC News.

“Almost all officials are safe and sound and alive. We may have lost one or two commanders, but that is not a big problem,” he said.

When asked about US President Donald Trump’s pre-recorded remarks after the attacks, Araghchi labeled efforts of regime change as “Mission Impossible.”

“You cannot do regime change while millions of people are supporting this so-called regime,” he said, adding that Tehran is “certainly interested for de-escalation.”

“Well, there is no communication right now. But if Americans want to talk to us, they know how.”

Damage in Iran

Araghchi downplayed the damage caused by US/Israel strikes and highlighted a rapid military response, stating that they were able to start retaliation “in less than two hours.”

He also condemned an attack on a girls’ primary school in the city of Minab in southern Iran’s Hormozgan province, where at least 40 were killed, stating: “This attack was unprovoked, illegal and absolutely illegitimate and against international law.”

“I don’t know why… why they decided to attack us, perhaps, you know, it was others who dragged the United States for their own benefits into this,” the minister added.

Iranian missiles won’t reach US

When asked to confirm if Iran would build missiles designed to hit the US, Araghchi confirmed that Iranian missiles were intentionally limited in range and cannot hit the US mainland.

“No, no, we don’t have those (with) that capability. We have intentionally kept the range of our missiles below 2,000 kilometers,” he said.

Araghchi emphasized that “Our missiles [are] only for deterrence and defense. They are not for aggression.”

Ongoing strikes

On Saturday morning, Israel launched what it called a “preemptive” attack against Iran under the name “Lion’s Roar,” declaring a “special and immediate” state of emergency across the country.

Trump later said his forces launched “major combat operations” in Iran aimed at “protecting the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”

The attacks come as talks between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear program had been ongoing under Oman’s mediation. A new round of talks in Geneva ended on Thursday according to Anadolu.

Middle East at War

CrossFireArabia
February 28, 2026

Opinion

Hammering The UN?

Dr Khairi Janbek
February 25, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Even from the moment of its inception, the UN was subjected to constant criticism and derision. Though it started as a coalition of the willing in order to deal with differences and sources of conflict in a peaceable and/or diplomatic manner, the term willing remained nebulous.

The strong and mighty wanted to bend this will to suit their interests, and the weak and the needy wanted to bend this will for their own protection. Still in this dialectical formula the need for the UN remains as the only viable formula which offers the possibility of negotiations in the Churchillian wisdom of jaw jaw, better than war war, and it remains in this sense, the standard which provides the vaneer for international legality and the semblance of consensus.

Then suddenly and apparently, the concept of the Donald Trump Board of Peace emerged on the scene, thought of, initially, as an effort to deal with the mayhem of Gaza, and to which one may add ironically and cynically, that the most two concerned parties – Palestinians and Israelis – are out of its functioning. On top of this, the notion was propelled in the media that this Board is really an attempt to replace the UN.

So in this context we can assume what is meant is that if the UN started, all these years ago, as a coalition of the willing, today’s Board of Peace is a coalition of the frightened, of states who want to stay on the good side of Trump. This is aside from the reluctant opportunists whom seek some benefits out of becoming a member of this entity.

On the face of it, one can say that the real purpose of its establishment is not to replace the United Nations per se, but a serious attempt to bypass the UN and redefine international relations in accordance with the Trump notion of who is the enemy of peace and who is its friends, with the essential outlook of not needing the international organization at all. Under the new legality, it is Trump who lays down the law, and the one whom distributes the spoils. As for the UN it remains in his eyes as a gathering for losers.

But if we go back to the beginning, in fact the Board of Peace, not only got the blessing of the UN for its creation, but also the support of the Security Council with resolution 2038, but then again, it was linked to the reconstruction and ‘stabilization’ of Gaza, while the current format of the Board emerged on the sidelines of the recent World Economic Forum meetings.

Now irrespective of some in the international community wanting to spite Trump or of waning his influence, there is a serious and big concern that President Trump and the fact that he is presiding over this Board, will mean that the talked about peace will be the peace of the strong imposed by the strong. In itself this rings many alarm bells on the strategic level for many regions in the world about the kind of peace Trump is talking about.

Among the myriad of world conflicts, currently the Palestinian problem, Ukraine war, and Iran, stand out as the most deadly and critical. So in what shape the proposed peace will come?

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Opinion

Trump’s War Through Politics

CrossFireArabia
February 14, 2026

By Dr Amani Al-Qarm

About 2,500 years ago, there was a Chinese general named Sun Tzu, renowned for his military genius and unique philosophy on achieving decisive victory. He compiled his vision in a famous book called “The Art of War.” Sun Tzu states in his book that subduing the enemy without fighting is better than winning a hundred battles, and that a skilled commander feeds on his enemies.

This means exploiting the enemy’s resources, weaknesses, and even strengths, striking at their strategy and alliances, and besieging them to achieve victory, rather than relying solely on one’s own resources. In other words, achieving victory at the lowest cost is preferable to destroying a country, and capturing the head of state is better than killing him.

The Trump administration’s slogan, “Peace Through Strength,” is not new to American administrations, but it was perhaps more blatant and explicit during Trump’s presidency, as was the case with everything else under his rule: no embellishment, no lofty phrases, no justifications to appease hypocritical Western arrogance, such as democracy and human rights. There are only declared and clear objectives: oil, minerals, money, and control without cost.

The entire world is watching the current unique American approach to dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just when the world expected an American strike on Iran, the door was opened for negotiations under the auspices of the massive aircraft carrier USS Lincoln and its destroyers and missiles stationed in the Arabian Sea.

This leaves allies and adversaries alike bewildered and unable to predict the outcome, while Trump maintains the element of surprise and the timing of the strike. It seems that Trump is not content with the slogan “Peace Through Strength” alone, but has added to it some of the principles of General Sun Tzu’s doctrine. Trump Feeds on His Enemies:

Iran is in a state of weakness unprecedented in decades. Internally, the country is seething with poverty and oppression, and the recent protests are unlike any before. Internal affairs are no longer purely domestic; they now carry external costs, given the threats the US president has made against the Iranian regime throughout the past month.

Furthermore, the country is strategically exposed. Its alliances have been shattered, and it and those who deal with it economically and militarily are besieged. The time is ripe to pounce on the prey. And because, as Tzu said, subduing the enemy without cost is better than winning a hundred battles, Trump has opened the door to negotiations to achieve his objectives.

What does Trump want from Iran? Is he negotiating to restore relations between the two countries? Or to liberate the Iranian people? Of course not. He seeks victory without a fight. The collapse of the country as a result of war would transform it into scattered chaos throughout the region, as has already been witnessed in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria.

Therefore, containing it to the greatest extent possible and completely changing its hostile behavior since 1979 is preferable to destroying it. And to strip it of everything it considers its sources of power: eradicating any nuclear ambitions, eliminating its missile program, and reducing its regional role to the bare minimum, while also constantly reminding it that America is serious and ready to confront it. From America’s perspective, qualitative and nuclear superiority should belong only to Israel in the region.

What happens next depends on Iranian behavior. Will it submit and be pragmatic, as it has been in the crises that have characterized its relationship with the United States since 1979, or will the Iranian regime feel that this crisis is existential, thus raising the voice of ideology where there is no turning back?

This article is republished from the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website.