In a dramatic move from the G7 summit in Canada, U.S. President Donald Trump departed early, declaring his reason was “Much bigger” than reports suggesting he was leaving to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. His unexpected exit underscores the escalating tensions in the Middle East and signals a shift in focus towards more definitive action.
Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that his return to Washington was driven by the need to attend to “many important matters,” later clarified by his team as related to “what’s going on in the Middle East.” He emphasized the necessity of being in the White House Situation Room for confidential monitoring of developments, preferring it over potentially compromised communications.
Beyond a Ceasefire: Seeking a “Real End”
Dismissing suggestions that his early departure was linked to seeking a ceasefire, Trump stated clearly, “I’m not looking for a cease fire.” Instead, he articulated a desire for something “better than a cease fire,” specifying “an end, a real end, not a cease fire, a real end.” He went further, suggesting he would be amenable to Iran “giving up entirely.”
These comments came amid escalating conflict, including Israeli strikes deep within Iran and ongoing Iranian missile attacks targeting Israel.
Focus on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Central to Trump’s stance is a resolute focus on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. He reiterated his unequivocal position: “IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.”
His stark call for everyone to “immediately evacuate Tehran!” via Truth Social earlier in the day was linked to this objective and Iran’s refusal to accept a prior “deal.” While later explaining the evacuation warning was simply to ensure people’s safety, the timing coincided with Israel issuing similar warnings in Tehran and striking targets within the capital, including Iran’s state broadcaster during a live transmission.
Divergence on Iran’s Nuclear Progress
Adding complexity to the situation are differing assessments regarding Iran’s nuclear program. While President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have suggested Iran is close to obtaining a weapon – with Netanyahu describing Israel’s actions as “existential” and claiming intelligence indicates Iran is “racing” towards a bomb – U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly hold a contrasting view.
According to assessments from the Director of National Intelligence, U.S. agencies continue to believe Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Khomeini has not re-authorized the program suspended in 2003. Sources familiar with U.S. intelligence suggest Iran is “years away” (potentially up to three) from weapon capability and that recent Israeli strikes may have set back the program by only a matter of months, contrasting with Israel’s claimed significant impact. Trump, however, publicly dismissed the U.S. intelligence assessment, stating, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having them.”
The Conflict On the Ground
The backdrop to Trump’s comments is a rapidly deteriorating situation. Israel has launched extensive strikes targeting military sites and missile launchers across Iran, reportedly putting Iranian military leadership “on the run” and damaging missile launch capabilities. While Israel confirmed strikes on some nuclear-related facilities, the underground Fordow enrichment site was reportedly not targeted, though not ruled out for future action. Iran has retaliated with missile attacks on Israel, causing casualties and damage, including hits on civilian areas like an apartment building in Peta Tikva.
Beyond the military exchanges, the humanitarian cost is mounting. In Gaza, the health system is described as at a “breaking point” due to critical shortages, with only a fraction of hospitals minimally functional. Reports from Khan Younis detailed hundreds of casualties, including dozens of fatalities, arriving at hospitals after tank shellfire near an aid distribution site. Thousands of Iranians are also attempting to evacuate major cities amid the strikes.
International Calls for De-escalation
The G7 leaders, including President Trump, ultimately signed a joint statement addressing the crisis. While initially hesitant, Trump agreed after changes to the draft language. The final statement affirmed commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East, upheld Israel’s “right to defend itself,” and labeled Iran as a key source of regional instability, insisting Iran can “never have a nuclear weapon.” Notably, the statement called for broader de-escalation, including a ceasefire in Gaza, but stopped short of a direct demand for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
European Union foreign ministers held emergency talks, emphasizing the urgent need for de-escalation and reaffirming diplomacy as the solution, particularly to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas indicated receiving assurances from U.S. counterparts that Washington is not seeking to join Israel’s attacks.
Iran’s Foreign Minister signaled openness to resuming talks with the U.S. if Israel’s strikes ceased, suggesting a single phone call from Washington to Israeli leadership could pave the way for diplomacy, while referring to Prime Minister Netanyahu as a “war criminal.”
Warning and Reluctance to Negotiate
Trump issued a stern warning to Iran against targeting U.S. personnel or assets, threatening a severe, “gloves off” response. Despite reports of potential avenues for talks, including through intermediaries like Qatar and Oman (contingent on cessation of Israeli attacks), Trump expressed reluctance for immediate negotiations. While mentioning the possibility of sending envoys like Vice President JD Vance or his Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff, he concluded, “I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate now.” He added that he hoped Iran’s nuclear program would be “wiped out long before that” if direct U.S. military involvement were considered.
Trump’s early return and his hardline stance signal a potentially more aggressive approach to the Iran crisis, prioritizing a decisive “end” over a temporary ceasefire as the conflict continues to escalate with significant humanitarian consequences.
