Politics
Trump pushes US towards war with Iran as advisers urge focus on economy
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.
TEXAS: As diplomatic activity intensifies ahead of anticipated peace talks between the United States and Iran in Islamabad, a parallel surge is unfolding far from negotiating tables in the fast-moving world of online prediction markets, where hundreds of millions of dollars are being wagered on the outcome of the conflict.
On platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi, traders are placing real-money bets on whether the fragile ceasefire will hold, whether negotiations will succeed, and how the broader confrontation might evolve. The scale of activity reflects a global consensus: the situation is both highly consequential and deeply uncertain.
Available data suggests that more than $300 million has been traded across Iran-related markets, transactions often described as “trading” rather than betting, with over $250 million concentrated in a single market tied to the timing and nature of a ceasefire.
Participants are effectively pricing probabilities: Will the Islamabad talks yield a breakthrough, or will tensions reignite?
Market sentiment, as reflected in these trades, remains cautious. The likelihood of a comprehensive and lasting peace agreement is currently viewed as limited, with implied probabilities ranging between 20% and 40%.
By contrast, a temporary or partial outcome such as an extension of the ceasefire or a limited diplomatic understanding is seen as more plausible, with estimates exceeding 50%.
At the same time, positions anticipating renewed escalation or a breakdown of the ceasefire hover between 30% and 50%, underscoring a widespread lack of confidence in long-term stability.
In some cases, traders have already reaped substantial gains. According to market reports, several participants earned more than $600,000 by correctly anticipating the ceasefire announcement before it became public, raising questions in some quarters about the possibility of insider information.
Analysts note that prediction markets have evolved beyond speculative entertainment into a serious barometer of geopolitical sentiment, where financial exposure intersects with information, analysis, and risk.
Meanwhile, international media outlets are describing the Islamabad talks as a “fragile but pivotal moment”. Yet there is broad agreement among analysts that the ceasefire itself remains tenuous, with core disputes unresolved.
Iran’s nuclear programme, control over the Strait of Hormuz, and ongoing hostilities in Lebanon continue to cast a long shadow over any diplomatic progress.
For Pakistan, the stakes are particularly high. Islamabad’s role as a mediator could enhance its diplomatic standing, but the risks are equally significant. Should the talks fail, the economic and security repercussions — especially through energy markets and regional instability are likely to be felt well beyond the negotiating room.
Experts caution that while financial wagering on geopolitical crises is not new, the scale of activity surrounding the US-Iran confrontation marks a turning point. Modern conflicts, they argue, are no longer confined to battlefields. Their impact ripples through financial systems, digital platforms, and global public opinion alike.
As attention turns to Islamabad, where negotiations are set to begin within hours, the outcome remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the world is watching and, in many cases, quite literally investing in what comes next.
ISLAMABAD: The United States and Iran are holding their highest-level talks in years in Islamabad in a Pakistan-brokered bid to turn a fragile two-week ceasefire into a lasting end to a war that has roiled global energy markets.
Here are five things to know about the Islamabad talks:
The war behind the talks
On February 28, the US and Israel launched coordinated strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and struck Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure, killing more than 2,000 people in five weeks.
Tehran responded by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a fifth of global oil and gas passes, sending energy prices soaring and disrupting trade worldwide.
On April 8, the US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said the talks could continue for up to 15 days. The ceasefire is expected to expire on April 22.
Pakistan’s starring role
Pakistan, a nation more frequently making international headlines for its terror incidents and shaky economy, is hosting the first negotiations between Washington and Tehran since the war began, a stunning pivot for a country long viewed through the lens of deep security concerns.
Pakistan’s value as mediator rests on an unusually broad diplomatic network.
Iran was the first country to recognise Pakistan following independence in 1947, with the two neighbours sharing a 900-kilometre border and deep historical, cultural and religious ties.
At the same time, Islamabad has cultivated strong ties with Washington, Riyadh and Beijing.
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar visited Beijing at the end of March for talks with Wang Yi, who backed Islamabad’s mediation efforts as “in keeping with the common interests of all parties”.
President Trump himself told AFP that China helped bring Iran to the negotiating table, an account backed by authorities in Islamabad.
What’s on the table?
The gap between the two sides remains vast. Washington’s reported 15-point proposal centres on Iran’s enriched uranium, ballistic missiles, sanctions relief and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran has countered with a 10-point plan demanding control over the strait, a toll for vessels crossing the strait, an end to all regional military operations and the lifting of all sanctions.
Lebanon is also a major sticking point. Israel continued its strikes in the country, targeting Hezbollah — after the ceasefire came into force — with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejecting the assertion that the truce included Lebanon.
US Vice President JD Vance appeared to take a softer tone, saying there may have been a “legitimate misunderstanding” from Iran that Lebanon would be included.
Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian warned on X that Israel’s strikes on Lebanon rendered the negotiations “meaningless”. “Our hands remain on the trigger. Iran will never forsake its Lebanese brothers and sisters.
Who are the negotiators?
Vance will lead the American team, joined by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
It marks the most senior US engagement with Iran since Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated the 2015 nuclear deal. Witkoff held multiple rounds of Oman-mediated talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi before the war cut the process short.
Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Araghchi are expected to lead the Iranian delegation.
Ghalibaf is a former IRGC commander, and it remains unclear whether any active IRGC representative will attend.
Foolproof security in Islamabad
The talks are being held in Islamabad. The streets of the federal capital are flooded with security personnel in military fatigues, traffic diversions and police checkpoints. The capital, already a quiet city, was even quieter on Friday.
The talks themselves are expected to be indirect: the two delegations sitting in separate rooms with Pakistani officials shuttling proposals between them, mirroring the format used in earlier Oman-mediated rounds.
- Indian airlines face revenue loss due to Dubai’s flight curbs.
- Airlines group urges reciprocal measures.
- India was Dubai Airport’s top passenger source last year.
Dubai has restricted foreign airlines to just one daily flight to its airports until May 31 due to the Iran crisis, igniting revenue loss fears among Indian carriers that had planned more flights than airlines from any other country, letters show.
The Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA), which represents top carriers IndiGo, Air India and SpiceJet, has asked India to push Dubai authorities to lift the curbs and, failing that, to consider reciprocal measures on Dubai carriers, including Emirates and flydubai, according to a letter it sent to the Indian government on March 31.
Indian carriers are already under financial pressure from higher fuel prices and longer routings to Western destinations because they have been banned from using Pakistani airspace since last year, following military tensions between the two neighbours.
In a private email to airlines on March 27, seen by Reuters, Dubai Airports said carriers would be allowed one round trip per day to Dubai International Airport (DXB), normally the world’s busiest international travel hub, and the smaller Al Maktoum International Airport (DWC) during the summer season between April 20 and May 31, extending restrictions implemented after the war began.
“Carriers continue to be limited to one rotation per day, until capacity allows more to be facilitated … Additional slots will be allocated if capacity is available,” it said.
The FIA told the Indian government the curbs were not being applied to Dubai’s airlines such as Emirates and flydubai, creating an uneven playing field that could lead to “substantial” revenue losses.
Dubai Airports and Dubai’s media office did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Flydubai said its flight schedules were approved by the relevant authorities. Emirates did not respond to a request for comment.
The measures come after Emirates and other Gulf airlines have long complained about India’s bilateral air service agreements that cap the number of seats that can be deployed between countries. Indian authorities have said such pacts protect Indian airlines in the cutthroat market.
Indian carriers hardest hit by caps
India was the largest source of passengers for DXB in 2025, with 11.9 million travellers passing through the hub.
The Dubai caps will hit Indian airlines the hardest, according to April and May schedules data from Cirium.
Air India and its budget carrier Air India Express have scheduled more than 750 flights into DXB in that period. IndiGo has 481, followed by Saudia and Gulf Air, which planned for 480 and 404, respectively. India’s SpiceJet had planned 61.
The one-flight-per-day cap would mean 30 or 31 per month for each foreign airline, versus the hundreds of daily flights being flown by Emirates and flydubai, according to Flightradar24 data.
IndiGo told Reuters in a statement that the Middle East crisis and the new Dubai extended restrictions “significantly constrained” its operations as it had an approved summer schedule of 15 daily flights from India to Dubai.
“As a result, a significant portion of IndiGo’s capacity and aircraft time is currently underutilised,” IndiGo said in its first comments on the crisis.
Air India, SpiceJet and Indian authorities did not respond to requests for comment.
Other major airlines such as Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, and British Airways had far fewer flights to Dubai than Indian carriers before the crisis began and have cancelled all flights to the city until at least May 31.
They are instead adding more non-stop Asia-Europe flights to take advantage of strong passenger demand that has pushed up prices.
Gap Inc enhances digital retail for smarter shopping experiences
I Did Not Catch Air on the Aventon Current Electric Mountain Bike, but I Could Have
How one ‘Stranger Things’ favourite scored Malcolm finale cameo role?
-
Business1 week agoJaguar Land Rover sees sales recover after cyber attack
-
Uncategorized1 week ago
[CinePlex360] Please moderate: “Trump signals p
-
Entertainment7 days agoJoe Jonas shares candid glimpse into parenthood with Sophie Turner
-
Tech7 days agoOur Favorite iPad Is $50 Off
-
Sports7 days agoUConn Final Four run could trigger a $50M furniture giveaway for Massachusetts-based Jordan’s Furniture
-
Business7 days agoVideo: Why Is the Labor Market Stuck?
-
Politics7 days agoIran can sustain Strait of Hormuz closure for years, will cut US military logistics: Official
-
Entertainment7 days agoBlake Lively reacts to harassment claims dismissal against Justin Baldoni