Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Become a member

Become a member

Trump Says Iran Conflict May End in Two Weeks Without Deal

President Donald Trump says the war involving the United States and Iran may conclude within two to three weeks, regardless of whether a diplomatic agreement is reached.

Get today's headlines by email image.png

Speaking as the White House announced he will deliver a national address on Wednesday evening, Trump said the campaign aims to eliminate Iran’s remaining military and nuclear capabilities.

He said the conflict could wrap up “within maybe two weeks,” possibly slightly longer, depending on the progress of military operations. The president added that U.S. forces intend to dismantle Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons before ending the campaign.

Trump sets short timeline for conflict

Trump also signalled that negotiations with Tehran remain possible but suggested they were not essential to ending the war.

He warned that if talks fail, the United States could escalate attacks on key infrastructure targets, including bridges.

“If they come to the table, that will be good,” he said. “But whether we have a deal or not, it’s irrelevant.”

Israel vows to continue offensive

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would continue its military campaign against Iran, declaring the operation far from over.

In a televised statement, Netanyahu said Israel would press ahead with efforts to defeat what he called Iran’s “terror regime.”

He argued the war had already reshaped the regional balance of power, claiming Israel had strengthened its position in the Middle East despite the continuing conflict.

His remarks came shortly after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian indicated that Iran was willing to end hostilities.

Pezeshkian said Tehran had the determination to conclude the conflict but was seeking guarantees that similar attacks would not occur again in the future.

The statements highlight a continuing divide between the opposing sides as fighting continues.

Iran-linked strikes hit Gulf region

The conflict expanded further across the Gulf on Wednesday following several attacks attributed to Iran or its allied groups.

Authorities in Kuwait reported a drone strike on a fuel tank at Kuwait International Airport, which triggered a large fire.

The state news agency said there were no immediate reports of injuries, while emergency crews worked to contain the blaze.

The report suggested the attack may have been carried out by Iran-backed militias operating from Iraq with support from Tehran.

Elsewhere in the Gulf, officials in Bahrain said firefighters were responding to a blaze at a business facility following what they described as an Iranian attack.

A tanker was also targeted off the coast of Qatar, according to authorities.

Inside Iran, state broadcaster Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting reported explosions and strikes across northern, eastern and central areas of Tehran.

Rubio questions NATO role

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington may reconsider its relationship with North Atlantic Treaty Organization once the conflict with Iran ends.

In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Rubio said the war had raised questions about the alliance’s value for the United States.

He noted that he had long supported NATO during his time in the Senate, particularly because U.S. forces rely on bases in Europe to project military power globally.

However, Rubio suggested that if allies restrict U.S. access to those bases during conflicts, the alliance could become a burden rather than a strategic asset.

He said the United States was not asking NATO members to participate directly in air strikes against Iran but expected them to allow the use of their facilities.

“If their answer is no,” Rubio said, “then you have to ask why we are in NATO.”

His remarks follow earlier criticism from Trump, who accused some allies of failing to support the U.S. war effort and told them to secure their own oil supplies rather than relying on American protection of the Strait of Hormuz.

Join the discussion? Create account. orange.png

Already a member? haveyr-say.png


image.png
Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 1 April 2026

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Then you’ll have a link to back your claim.

Stop being puerile. The IAEA has said this as has Iran and you know this.

connda Star Member

connda

Advanced Member

Trump to move the market and make billions tomorrow.

Screenshot from 2026-04-01 17-57-40.png

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s the ‘weapons of mass destruction destruction claim again.

No it's not. Iran says it has 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium.

GammaGlobulin Star Member

GammaGlobulin

Advanced Member

No need to wait two weeks.

Stop US involvement now.

Let the Israelis fight their own battles.

And, the US must NOT provide money to help Israel re-build after most of Israel is destroyed.

Let them live among the destruction they caused.

They need a lesson in attitude...BIG Time.

Many Jews in the US are now completely fed up with Israel.

Israel will soon learn that the world, and even the US, will not forget the destruction Israel, and their maniacal, and possibly also demented, leader, has caused the world....this time.

Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Stop being puerile. The IAEA has said this as has Iran and you know this.

I don’t know who said the war would be over in 4-6 weeks.

You claim this was stated.

So you’ll have no problem linking to the statement.

Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

No it's not. Iran says it has 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium.

Which, no longer being bound by any treaty to the contrary, they are entitled to have.

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which, no longer being bound by any treaty to the contrary, they are entitled to have.

Do you think every nation/dictatorship/theocratic dictatorship/terrorist organisations should have nukes? If you do and with all due respect you are quite mad. As for the treaty they were not abiding by it. Iran wanted nukes and ICBMs to put them on. Simple as.

Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Do you think every nation/dictatorship/theocratic dictatorship/terrorist organisations should have nukes? If you do and with all due respect you are quite mad. As for the treaty they were not abiding by it. Iran wanted nukes and ICBMs to put them on. Simple as.

No, and I never argued they should. Iran now has every reason to develop a nuclear weapon and no reason not to.

Iran were abiding by the treaty.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04/news/iaea-says-iran-abiding-nuclear-deal

GroveHillWanderer Platinum Member

GroveHillWanderer

Advanced Member
1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Do you think every nation/dictatorship/theocratic dictatorship/terrorist organisations should have nukes? If you do and with all due respect you are quite mad. As for the treaty they were not abiding by it. Iran wanted nukes and ICBMs to put them on. Simple as.

What treaty - the JCPOA? According to the body monitoring it, the IAEA, they were absolutely abiding by it.

It was only after the US unilaterally abrogated the deal, that they started enriching uranium to higher levels.

IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano’s statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal’s terms. It notes that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.”

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04/news/iaea-says-iran-abiding-nuclear-deal

CallumWK Diamond Member

CallumWK

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

4-6 wks. That was the initial call.

I must have missed that announcement, and your delusional arrogant matey on here said it would be a matter of days to finish it all off. So do you have a link to that claim, or are you an insider of the pentagon?

metisdead Legendary Member

An inflammatory post commenting on moderation has been removed:

13. You will not publicly comment on moderation in an open forum. You will not comment on actions taken by individual moderators or on specific or general policies and issues. You will not post a negative emoticon in response to a public notice made by a moderator. You may send a private message to a moderator to discuss individual actions or you can email support (at) aseannow.com to discuss moderation policy and account suspensions.You will not block communication from moderators or Admin.

Aggression, personal attacks, derogatory comments or any form of abuse toward moderators, Admin, or this forum in general will not be tolerated and will result in strict consequences.

There is absolutely no excuse for abusive behavior.

JBChiangRai Diamond Member

JBChiangRai

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

You must be kidding. Not a threat. Years away. Where are you forming your opinions from?

From your leader, who said he obliterated their nuclear development last year, shock, horror, you don’t mean to say he was lying do you?

CallumWK Diamond Member

CallumWK

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Seems like Iran didn't want to stop their progression to ICBM's and nukes.

Thought Trump had obliterated the nuclear program last year?

AI Overview

Obliterated means to be completely destroyed, wiped out, or erased, leaving no traces or evidence behind. It describes something rendered unrecognizable or, in a figurative sense, to have feelings or memories entirely removed. Common synonyms include eradicated, annihilated, erased, wiped out, and extinguished. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

atpeace Platinum Member

atpeace

Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Wingate said:

Hegseth said in one of his pressers, "I pray to God we blow the Hell out of them".

I'm a little hazy on my Bible, but from what Psalm is that? Maybe Psalm 666?

Maybe it was a redacted part of the Sermon on the Mount?

It certainly doesn't sound like the Jesus I've read about.

You obviously haven't read the bible. Many worse things discussed in that text.

Dene16 Advanced Member

Dene16

Advanced Member
7 hours ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump says the war involving the United States and Iran may conclude within two to three weeks, regardless of whether a diplomatic agreement is reached.

America doing what it has always done rushed in with their, I'm America, we cannot be beaten attitude. Only to find out once again their in a conflict they cannot win and leave.

Leaving everyone else to suffer the consequences.

Now he says he may leave NATO.

America can no longer be trusted, Yes, NATO did rely heavily on America but now need to be rid of them.

America under Trump is a global liability. How ironic it is that Trump has turned out to be a bigger dictator than Putin.

atpeace Platinum Member

atpeace

Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

America doing what it has always done rushed in with their, I'm America, we cannot be beaten attitude. Only to find out once again their in a conflict they cannot win and leave.

Leaving everyone else to suffer the consequences.

Now he says he may leave NATO.

America can no longer be trusted, Yes, NATO did rely heavily on America but now need to be rid of them.

America under Trump is a global liability. How ironic it is that Trump has turned out to be a bigger dictator than Putin.

NATO without America would be wonderful until a powerful nation threatened NATO nations. What would happen then? For a 100 years America has had to save Europe from itself or other aggressors. Why do you think now Europe is ready to be responsible about security when it is more dependent on America than ever?

China would destroy the Euro region and Russia would be able to do considerable damage. The American continent seems to be the only continent that isn't always at war with other countries or killing it own citizens.

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
51 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No, and I never argued they should. Iran now has every reason to develop a nuclear weapon and no reason not to.

Iran were abiding by the treaty.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04/news/iaea-says-iran-abiding-nuclear-deal

Why? Why do they need nuclear weapons? As for the treaty the IAEA caught them out on several occasions breaking the treaty. Iran said they wanted domestic nuclear capacity. 60% enriched isn't this. What's so difficult for you to understand they want nuclear weapons and they've been on this path for decades.

CallumWK Diamond Member

CallumWK

Advanced Member
1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Why? Why do they need nuclear weapons? As for the treaty the IAEA caught them out on several occasions breaking the treaty. Iran said they wanted domestic nuclear capacity. 60% enriched isn't this. What's so difficult for you to understand they want nuclear weapons and they've been on this path for decades.

They didn't have 60% enriched uranium at the time of the treaty, and the IAEA never claimed that either.
It was only after bully boy tore up the treaty that Iran went all in, and went to the limit for just NOT nuclear capacitive uranium.

Neither would it be a matter of weeks to go from 60% enriched to a nuclear weapon, several nuclear experts have made that clear since the war started

FolkGuitar Platinum Member

FolkGuitar

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

You must be kidding. Not a threat. Years away. Where are you forming your opinions from?

Do you suppose trump was lying last time when he said he obliterated (you do understand that word, right?) Iran's nuclear program and facilities. How could that be a threat now?

Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Why? Why do they need nuclear weapons? As for the treaty the IAEA caught them out on several occasions breaking the treaty. Iran said they wanted domestic nuclear capacity. 60% enriched isn't this. What's so difficult for you to understand they want nuclear weapons and they've been on this path for decades.

Quit with your lies.

Iran were abiding with the treaty.

Israeli and the United States have started an illegal war of aggression against Iran.

That there is the justification for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Trump unilaterally withdrawing from the treaty with Iran removes all legal and treaty obligations on Iran not to produce a nuclear weapon.

We non of us have to like this, but it is the reality Trump has delivered.

still kicking Star Member

still kicking

Advanced Member
7 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

TACO Trump

Is he still winning?

CallumWK Diamond Member

CallumWK

Advanced Member
8 hours ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump says the war involving the United States and Iran may conclude within two to three weeks,

I must say Trump has a strange sense for April's fool jokes.

JAG Ruby Member

JAG

Advanced Member

7 hours ago, webfact said:

He noted that he had long supported NATO during his time in the Senate, particularly because U.S. forces rely on bases in Europe to project military power globally.

However, Rubio suggested that if allies restrict U.S. access to those bases during conflicts, the alliance could become a burden rather than a strategic asset.

He said the United States was not asking NATO members to participate directly in air strikes against Iran but expected them to allow the use of their facilities.

“If their answer is no,” Rubio said, “then you have to ask why we are in NATO.

How can I put in terms which even as worldy wise and experienced a master of international affairs as Marcus Rubio can understand?

NATO is a defensive alliance, of European and North American countries. The key to understanding it is article 5 of the founding treaty, under which if a member country is attacked it can ask the other members to assist with it's defence. It does not exist to support the United States in it's various military power projection adventures beyond it's (NATO's) boundaries. Now over the last three decades America has become accustomed to using it's basing facilities within Europe, naval, military and air, as part of its power projection in the Middle East and North Africa. This is not what the bases were made available for - but NATO - in my view unwisely allowed it to become the practice. The NATO countries were neither informed nor consulted about this war. It was a war of choice, aggression, launched for what are completely obvious domestic political reasons. Almost without exception they want no part of it.

Rubio now suggests (echoing President Trump) that once the fighting stops the USA will withdraw from NATO. That will mean losing access to those bases. Having to lose the major medical and logistic hub of Ramstein, the forward based airborne brigade in Italy, the forward air bases in England, Spain and Italy, the vital intelligence gathering installations in England and Cyprus - without them RAF Atrokiri is little more than a "ClubMed" resort for Crab Air. The 6th Fleet will lose automatic access to ports and maintenance facilities, next time the khazis are blocked on one of their obscenely expensive aircraft carriers they will have to pooh in buckets off the back all the way back to the Continental United States! Every tin of food, every piece of toilet paper, every medical casualty will have to be flown or shipped in or out to the Continental United States.

Let the implications sink in - I know the administration is not one for thinking things through - but the USA will be, to a very large extent, out of the power projection business!

Now that may, it could be argued, a good thing. There may be some economic damage in the areas where bases close, but probably insignificant when compared to the damage already done by this war.

Of course, and I have seen it argued, the US could replace the European bases with facilities created in North Africa. Libya, Egypt? Good luck with that - they will need the Airborne Brigade from Italy, and a (massive number more!) just to secure the perimiter fences!

phetphet Ruby Member

phetphet

Advanced Member

Seeing as Marines, Apache helicopters and Warthog aircraft are on the way, Trump is probably lying about pulling out.

His ego couldn’t take the ridicule that would be heaped upon him at home if he did.

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

They didn't have 60% enriched uranium at the time of the treaty, and the IAEA never claimed that either.
It was only after bully boy tore up the treaty that Iran went all in, and went to the limit for just NOT nuclear capacitive uranium.

Neither would it be a matter of weeks to go from 60% enriched to a nuclear weapon, several nuclear experts have made that clear since the war started

You believe what you want. I suggest not just looking at the things that support your narrative aka legacy media. The Islamic Republic of Iran wanted nukes and ICBMs to put them on and that's what they were going for. I'm flummoxed by people who believe this abhorrent regime. They needed taking out for the good of the world and I hope it happens. Many of the top already gone. I hope the Iranian people can once again live their lives not dictated over by jihadist Islamists. Take your Trump hate out of the picture. Where do you stand? Imagine if Obama did this then what would you be saying? Did you cheer for the strikes on Libya to get rid of the dictator Gaddafi? There's the real world and then there's the world that exists only between people's ears believing what they're fed. What's happening in Iran is is the real world. Taking out a threat to OUR world. Imagine if Hitler, Stalin and Mao were taken out early. Hundreds of millions of people would not have died. The Republic of Iran has already showed it's hand and announced to the world JIHAD against Israel and the US and admitted to having near weapons grade uranium.

Do you think the fundamentalist Islamic regime should have nukes? If that's the case then this is what needs to happen. Everyone has nukes. Not exactly what I'd think to be a leftist viewpoint.

Fact is war is happening. Two countries are trying to stop one country from having nukes. Other countries who don't won't to get involved don't won't to get involved because they are now behoven to their Muslim voters and the leftist ideology.

p.s. I use to be a leftist. Not any more. It's madness.

CG1 Blue Gold Member

CG1 Blue

Advanced Member
48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Iran were abiding with the treaty.

You actually believe the mullahs tell the truth? They must love the gullible westerners sticking up for them...

"The UK, France and Germany (referred to as the E3) said, however, that Iran’s “consistent and severe non-compliance with its JCPOA commitments” warranted the retention of sanctions"

"Since May 2019, however, Iran has continued to violate the terms of the JCPOA agreement. It has lifted the cap on its stockpile of uranium, which is now 30 times the level permitted; increased its enrichment activities to 60%, significantly beyond the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA; expanded its enrichment capabilities and resumed activity at nuclear facilities that were previously prohibited under the terms of the deal."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9870/

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

You actually believe the mullahs tell the truth? They must love the gullible westerners sticking up for them...

"The UK, France and Germany (referred to as the E3) said, however, that Iran’s “consistent and severe non-compliance with its JCPOA commitments” warranted the retention of sanctions"

"Since May 2019, however, Iran has continued to violate the terms of the JCPOA agreement. It has lifted the cap on its stockpile of uranium, which is now 30 times the level permitted; increased its enrichment activities to 60%, significantly beyond the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA; expanded its enrichment capabilities and resumed activity at nuclear facilities that were previously prohibited under the terms of the deal."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9870/

It's not a matter of believing the mullahs it's a matter of believing the legacy media. Sadly some people do not have the intellectual capacity for critical thinking. Sheeple I believe is an appropriate noun.

scottiejohn Star Member

scottiejohn

Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It's not a matter of believing the mullahs it's a matter of believing the legacy media.

So what media do you believe in?

Please if an example or two!

JBChiangRai Diamond Member

JBChiangRai

Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It's not a matter of believing the mullahs it's a matter of believing the legacy media. Sadly some people do not have the intellectual capacity for critical thinking. Sheeple I believe is an appropriate noun.

And you are the perfect example of a sheeple.

You are still following the guy who lied to you, make America great again he’s actually making America poorer again, no more wars, not invading Iran, ending the Ukraine war on day one, how much more of a sheeple could you be?

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

So what media do you believe in?

Please if an example or two!

I'll tell you what media I don't believe. MSM. This I am not alone in.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.