WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has pushed the United States to the brink of war with Iran even as aides urge him to focus more on voters’ economic worries, highlighting the political risks of military escalation ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

Trump has ordered a huge buildup of forces in the Middle East and preparations for a potential multi-week air attack on Iran. But he has not laid out in detail to the American public why he might be leading the US into its most aggressive action against the Islamic Republic since its 1979 revolution.

Trump’s fixation on Iran has emerged as the starkest example yet of how foreign policy, including his expanded use of raw military force, has topped his agenda in the first 13 months of his second term, often overshadowing domestic issues like the cost of living that public opinion polls show are much higher priorities for most Americans.

A senior White House official said that, despite Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, there was still no “unified support” within the administration to go ahead with an attack on Iran.

Trump’s aides are also mindful of the need to avoid sending a “distracted message” to undecided voters more concerned about the economy, the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the press.

White House advisers and Republican campaign officials want Trump focused on the economy, a point that was stressed as the top campaign issue at a private briefing this week with numerous cabinet secretaries, according to a person who attended. Trump was not present.

A second White House official, responding to Reuters questions for this story, said Trump’s foreign policy agenda “has directly translated into wins for the American people.”

“All of the President’s actions put America First — be it through making the entire world safer or bringing economic deliverables home to our country,” the official said.

November’s election will decide whether Trump’s Republican Party continues to control both chambers of the US Congress. Loss of one or both chambers to opposition Democrats would pose a challenge to Trump in the final years of his presidency.

Rob Godfrey, a Republican strategist, said a prolonged conflict with Iran would pose significant political peril for Trump and his fellow Republicans.

“The president has to keep in mind the political base that propelled him to the Republican nomination — three consecutive times — and that continues to stick by him is sceptical of foreign engagement and foreign entanglements because ending the era of ‘forever wars’ was an explicit campaign promise,” Godfrey said.

Republicans plan to campaign on individual tax cuts enacted by Congress last year, as well as programmes to lower housing and some prescription drug costs.

Tougher foe than Venezuela

Despite some dissenting voices, many in Trump’s isolationist-minded “Make America Great Again” movement supported the lightning raid that deposed Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro last month. 

But he could face more pushback if he steers the US into war with Iran, which would be a much more formidable foe.

Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to strike Iran if it does not reach an agreement on its nuclear programme, reiterated his warning on Friday, saying Tehran “better negotiate a fair deal”.

The US targeted nuclear sites in Iran in June, and Iran has threatened to retaliate fiercely if attacked again.

Trump won reelection in 2024 on his ‘America First’ platform in large part because of his promise to reduce inflation and avoid costly foreign conflicts, but he has been struggling to convince Americans that he is making inroads in bringing down high prices, public opinion polls show.

Still, Republican strategist Lauren Cooley said Trump’s supporters could support military action against Iran if it is decisive and limited.

“The White House will need to clearly connect any action to protecting American security and economic stability at home,” she said.

Even so, with polls showing little public appetite for another foreign war and Trump struggling to stay on message to fully address voters’ economic angst, any escalation with Iran is a risky move by a president who acknowledged in a recent interview with Reuters that his party could struggle in the midterms.

Varied war reasons

Foreign policy, historically, has rarely been a decisive issue for midterm voters. 

But, having deployed a large force of aircraft carriers, other warships and warplanes to the Middle East, Trump may have boxed himself in to carrying out military action unless Iran makes major concessions that it has so far shown little willingness to accept. Otherwise, he may risk looking weak internationally.

The reasons Trump has given for a possible attack have been vague and varied. He initially threatened strikes in January in reaction to the Iranian government’s bloody crackdown on nationwide street protests but then backed down.

He has more recently pinned his military threats to demands that Iran end its nuclear programme and has floated the idea of “regime change,” but he and his aides have not said how air strikes could make that happen.

The second White House official insisted that Trump “has been clear that he always prefers diplomacy, and that Iran should make a deal before it is too late.” The president, the official added, has also stressed that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon or the capacity to build one, and that they cannot enrich uranium.”

What many see as a lack of clarity stands in stark contrast to the extensive public case made by then-president George W Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which he said was meant to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. Though that mission ended up being based on bad intelligence and false claims, Bush’s stated war aims were clear at the outset.

Godfrey, the Republican strategist, said independent voters – crucial in deciding the outcomes of close elections — will be scrutinising how Trump handles Iran.

“Midterm voters and his base will be waiting for the president to make his case,” he said.

• Trump signs signs executive order repealing struck down tariffs.
• President imposes new 10% tariff on imports from all countries.
• Investors lament new dose of uncertainty.

US President Donald Trump responded with fury to Friday’s Supreme Court ruling that he lacked the power to unilaterally set tariffs on imports, denouncing individual justices as he vowed to continue a global trade war that has kept the world on edge for a year.

Saying he was undeterred by what he repeatedly called a ridiculous ruling, Trump announced an immediate new 10% tariff on imports from all countries, on top of any existing tariffs, and then issued a proclamation putting them into effect. The law allows him to impose a levy of up to 15% for 150 days, although it could face legal challenges.

The court’s landmark 6-3 ruling upended the leverage Trump and his trade envoys have wielded over foreign governments at negotiating tables to reshape diplomatic relations and global markets.

The ruling briefly sent US stock indexes surging, before ending modestly higher as analysts warned of renewed confusion in global markets while they await Trump’s next moves.

Hours after the ruling, Trump signed an executive order repealing the tariffs that the court struck down, and he also issued a proclamation imposing a 10% duty on most goods imported into the US for 150 days, granting exemptions for certain items including critical minerals, metals and energy products, the White House said.

Trade deals, revenue in question

The ruling called into question the trade deals Trump’s envoys have negotiated in recent months under the threat of high tariffs. It left open the fate of the $175 billion Trump has collected from US importers under what the court said was his incorrect reading of the law.

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump told reporters at the White House, complaining that foreign countries were ecstatic and “dancing in the street”.

He insinuated, without evidence, that the majority of the court caved to foreign influence: “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.”

Since returning to the White House 13 months ago, Trump has said he had what the court summarised as the “extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope.” Citing a national emergency, he said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) meant he could set tariffs at any rate he chose.

The court grounded its opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with a quote from the US Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

The argument by the Trump administration that it had identified a war-like emergency to justify a loophole failed to persuade the court.

“The Government thus concedes, as it must, that the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime,” Roberts wrote.

“And it does not defend the challenged tariffs as an exercise of the President’s warmaking powers. The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.”

Despite the court’s bluntness in ruling the president had exceeded his authority, Trump told reporters: “It’s ridiculous, but it’s OK, because we have other ways, numerous other ways.”

Economic uncertainty rises

After a year of Trump’s often ad hoc tariff announcements whipsawing markets and the global economy, the ruling and Trump’s response reintroduced a hefty dose of uncertainty that economists, investors and policymakers had hoped was in the rearview mirror.

“I think it will just bring in a new period of high uncertainty in world trade, as everybody tries to figure out what the US tariff policy will be going forward,” said Varg Folkman, analyst at the European Policy Centre think tank.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the court ruling could have mixed results.

“The Supreme Court has taken away the President’s leverage, but in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo,” Bessent told “The Will Cain Show” on Fox News.

“We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries. It will just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner,” he said.

In announcing his new temporary 10% tariff, Trump became the first president to invoke Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to levy tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to fix “fundamental international payments problems.” That, too, could draw legal challenges. Such tariffs can only be extended with Congress’ authorisation.

DUBAI: Dubai Police have fined a child’s guardian AED50,000 after a minor was caught riding a recreational electric motorbike on a public street, officials said.

Traffic patrol officers stopped the child, who was accompanied by another minor, to prevent any risk to them and other road users. The bike was impounded.

Police said the guardian was summoned and must pay a 50,000 dirham fee to release the vehicle, in line with Dubai traffic rules that allow authorities to seize vehicles involved in dangerous behaviour.

Officials added that legal action was also taken under the UAE’s child protection law, which makes it a crime to put children in danger or neglect their safety.

Police warned parents not to allow underage children to ride or drive any vehicle on public roads, saying children are not physically or mentally prepared to handle traffic.

Dubai Police said strict action will continue against anyone who endangers children or public safety.