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.
- 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.
US President Donald Trump’s Republicans on Thursday blocked an attempt by the opposition Democrats to curb his authority to wage war in Iran, amid mounting frustration in Congress over his handling of the Middle East conflict.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries sought to pass a war powers resolution by “unanimous consent” — a procedure that bypasses the need to hold a recorded vote, provided no one objects — but was stopped, as expected, by the Republican majority’s presiding officer.
The maneuver, staged during a short procedural session while lawmakers remain out of Washington, was largely symbolic but underscored growing Democratic anger over a conflict that has not been formally authorized by Congress.
Jeffries had urged colleagues to attend the session and press for immediate action, arguing a recently announced two-week ceasefire was “woefully insufficient” and calling for a permanent end to US involvement in the war.
Republicans, however, showed little appetite to challenge Trump’s authority.
Some have backed the administration’s handling of the conflict, while others — though uneasy about the lack of congressional oversight — have stopped short of supporting measures that could constrain military operations.
The failed push sets the stage for a more consequential showdown next week, when lawmakers return from a two-week recess and Democrats plan to force a recorded vote on the resolution.
Jeffries has said he believes only a small number of Republicans would need to break ranks for the measure to pass.
In the Senate, Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled a parallel effort, with a vote expected in the coming days.
Similar measures have struggled to gain traction in the past, and Republican opposition remains strong despite signs of unease within the party.
Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, Congress is required to act within 60 days of the start of an unauthorized military conflict — a deadline that could intensify pressure on lawmakers if the Iran war continues.
“The American people are with us,” Jeffries told left-leaning cable news network MS NOW ahead of the vote.
“They don’t want to see billions of dollars being spent dropping bombs in Iran from an administration that’s not willing to spend a dime to actually make life more affordable for the American people.”
WASHINGTON: First lady Melania Trump denied on Thursday that she had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and said she was not one of his victims, thrusting the Epstein matter back into the spotlight after her husband had sought to put it behind him.
She denied online speculation that the disgraced financier and sex offender had introduced her to Donald Trump, saying she had met her husband at a New York City party in 1998, two years before crossing paths with Epstein at another event she attended with Trump.
She also urged Congress to hold public hearings for Epstein victims to tell their stories under oath, raising the prospect of further public attention on an issue the president wants to go away.
“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” Melania Trump said, reading a statement and declining to take questions from reporters.
“I am not Epstein’s victim,” she said, responding to what she said were false smears against her.
Her extraordinary address, delivered under the presidential seal in the White House foyer, renews scrutiny of the Epstein case that has roiled Donald Trump’s presidency as even some supporters say his administration mishandled disclosures from government files.
Last week, the president fired Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had drawn the ire of Trump loyalists over the Justice Department’s slow release of millions of Epstein‑related files.
Trump, a onetime friend of Epstein who said he cut ties with the financier in the early 2000s, is among many famous people – celebrities, politicians and intellectuals – named in the government files.
Melania Trump did not say why she chose to speak out on Thursday, resurrecting an issue that had largely slipped from the headlines amid the US-Israeli war against Iran.
But Marc Beckman, her senior adviser, told Reuters in a statement: “First Lady Melania Trump spoke out now because enough is enough. The lies must stop.”
A spokesperson for the first lady said Trump’s aides were made aware of her plans for Thursday’s statement.
“This took guts”
While first ladies have occasionally addressed the nation on political issues, Melania Trump’s statement was exceptional.
“A first lady in contemporary times has not publicly addressed controversy in this way, and certainly never from the state floor of the White House, so this took guts,” said Michael LaRosa, former press secretary to first lady Jill Biden.
“Melania is very intentional and deliberative on the frequency of her appearances, and I think this event is going to speak so loudly that I don’t think she will need to address this again,” LaRosa added in an interview.
The first lady said she had never had a relationship with Epstein or his convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell, with whom she said she had only a casual correspondence.
Melania Trump said she first “crossed paths” with Epstein in 2000 at an event she attended with Donald Trump, five years before their marriage.
“At the time, I had never met Epstein and had no knowledge of his criminal undertakings,” she said.
Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to two Florida felonies, including procurement of a minor for prostitution, was facing federal charges of sex-trafficking minors in 2019, when he died in jail in what was ruled a suicide.
“I have never been friends with Epstein,” Melania Trump said. “Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.”
The first lady sidestepped a question this year about the victims of Maxwell at an event with former captives of Hamas in Gaza.
The president has sought for months to move past discussions about Epstein.
“I think it’s really time for the country to get on to something else, really, now that nothing came out about me,” Trump said in February.
Release of the files
The Trump administration, under pressure from the president’s political base, ordered the US Justice Department to release files tied to criminal probes of Epstein in compliance with a transparency law passed by Congress.
The files include a 2002 email from Melania Trump to Maxwell about a New York Magazine piece on Epstein.
“Nice story about JE in NY mag. You look great on the picture,” the email reads. “Give me a call when you are back in NY.”
On Thursday, Melania Trump described her email to Maxwell as just “casual correspondence,” and “a trivial note.”
A Reuters/Ipsos poll in January showed only 21% of respondents approved of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files.
A separate Reuters/Ipsos poll in February showed three-quarters of Americans – including two-thirds of Republicans – believe the federal government is hiding information about the alleged clients of Epstein.
Around a dozen Epstein survivors opposed Melania Trump’s proposal for public hearings, saying in a statement they had already done enough to publicise Epstein’s crimes through testimony and reports and that it was up to the US Justice Department to follow through. They also called on the Trump administration to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
UK, Bangladesh to reactivate trade, investment dialogue
Jenna Ortega makes surprise revelation about role she lost
Meta’s New AI Asked for My Raw Health Data—and Gave Me Terrible Advice
-
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
-
Sports6 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?
-
Entertainment7 days agoBlake Lively reacts to harassment claims dismissal against Justin Baldoni
-
Sports7 days agoPSL 11: Lahore Qalandars defeat Multan Sultans in rain-shortened clash