Trump repeats that he is 'not happy' with Iran as deadline to seek approval for war looms

Are US and Iran close to peace or sliding back to war?

Just nowPaul AdamsDiplomatic correspondentReutersUS President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he was "not satisfied" yet with the terms of a deal being negotiated with Iran.A ceasefire "hanging by a thread". A diplomatic process "making progress". A president "not satisfied". And explosions echoing around the Gulf.What to make of the current, confusing state of relations between the US and Iran - are we close to peace or sliding back to war?The latest word from the White House is that negotiators from both sides have agreed a framework for a 60-day extension of the ceasefire, to allow room for further talks - but that this still needs US President Donald Trump's approval. This has not been confirmed by Iran.It comes towards the end of a week that has tested the ceasefire, which came into effect on 8 April and has now lasted considerably longer than the active phase of fighting which preceded it.Iran responded to the latest US strikes - which included what US Central Command (Centcom) described as a "ground control site" in the southern Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas - with a warning that "aggression will not go unanswered".Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) then said it had attacked an American air base. It did not say which, but Centcom later said a ballistic missile had been intercepted over Kuwait, where the US has several bases.Echoing Tehran's language, Centcom called the attack "an egregious ceasefire violation".It all sounds ominous, but this is still a far cry from the furious exchanges that characterised the first five-and-a-half weeks of this conflict. In that time, the US and Israel launched thousands of sorties against targets all across Iran, and Tehran responded with volleys of drones and ballistic missiles against US bases, Gulf countries and Israel.The US said on Thursday it had shot down five Iranian drones which "posed a threat around the Strait of Hormuz", suggesting shipping - commercial or military - was once again the focus of concern.But neither side seems to regard the sort of tit for tat exchanges we have seen this week as marking a return to all-out war.All the while, a tortured diplomatic process, involving multiple actors, is playing out in the background.We get glimpses of that process from time to time, but they are partial and fleeting.On Wednesday, Iranian state media reported elements of what they described as an unofficial draft of a 14-point memorandum of understanding.The report included everything Tehran would like to see: the lifting of Washington's naval blockade of Iranian ports, the withdrawal of US forces from the "vicinity of Iran", and the restoration of non-military traffic through the Strait of Hormuz with Iran and Oman in control of the management and routing of vessels.Notably absent from the report was any talk of Iranian concessions, especially on the all-important nuclear issue.The White House issued a terse statement, calling the purported draft a "complete fabrication". Later, during the latest televised cabinet meeting at the White House, Trump said he was not yet satisfied with proposals for a deal.Trump said Iran was "starting to give us the things that they have to give us". He did not elaborate and repeated his warning that Tehran's failure to comply would trigger a return to war."If they won't, then the man on my left is going to finish them off," he said, turning to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.There were characteristic signs of impatience too. Asked about reports that Iran and Oman might seek to control the movement of ships through the strait, Trump issued a stark warning to a traditional US ally."Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we'll have to blow them up," he said.Meanwhile, the US Treasury on Wednesday sanctioned Iran's newly formed "Persian Gulf Strait Authority", set up by Tehran to oversee traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.The Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) called the scheme "a new attempt by Iran's Islamic

Are US and Iran close to peace or sliding back to war?

Happy, who taught researchers that elephants can recognize themselves, is euthanized

Bronx Zoo elephant "Happy" strolls inside the zoo's Asia Habitat in New York, Oct. 2, 2018.

Bebeto Matthews/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Bebeto Matthews/AP

NEW YORK — Happy, a Bronx Zoo elephant who gave researchers new insight into the animal's behavior and became the crux of a closely watched animal rights case, has been euthanized at age 55, the zoo said Wednesday.

The Asian elephant was put to sleep Tuesday at the zoo where she lived for almost a half-century. Zoo officials said some age-related conditions accelerated in recent weeks, and she showed signs of a falloff in kidney or liver function. A necropsy revealed arthritis and large, inoperable uterine tumors that are impossible to diagnose in elephants through exams or imaging, the zoo said.

"She was a wonderful elephant," interim zoo director Craig Piper said in an interview Wednesday, as heavy-hearted staffers absorbed the loss of an animal some had tended for over 30 years. "She served as a tremendous ambassador for elephants and for elephant conservation."

Since Happy's death, the zoo's 57-year-old Patty is the last elephant on exhibit in the United States' largest city. The zoo's parent institution, the Wildlife Conservation Society, decided 20 years ago to stop acquiring pachyderms.

Born in the wild in Asia, Happy was brought to the U.S. as a 1-year-old. She was named for a character from "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" before arriving at the zoo in 1977.

Happy keenly engaged with her keepers and was easy to motivate with favorite treats, such as watermelon or strawberries, said Keith Lovett, the zoo's director of animal programs. Piper said she sometimes stashed treats in her ear to save for later.

In 2005, she showed researchers that elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror — a sign of self-awareness seen in only a few other species. During the experiment, Happy faced her reflection and repeatedly used her trunk to touch an "X" painted above her eye, a mark she could see only in the mirror.

She was paired with other elephants until her last partner died in 2006. Happy then lived separately from Patty and a third elephant out of concern that they wouldn't get along, though Lovett said the animals could see, smell and touch each other over a divider. The third elephant, called Maxine, died in 2018.

Zoo officials said the median life expectancy for Asian elephants in U.S. zoos is about 45 years. Their life expectancy in the wild is more difficult to pinpoint.

During Happy's lifetime, zoo elephant exhibits came under increased scrutiny. Some experts said urban animal parks were too small for creatures that roam extensive distances in the wild. Animal rights activists argued that zoo enclosures were no place for big-brained, social pachyderms.

Some zoos phased out their exhibits and sent elephants to sanctuaries, though some other zoos remain committed to keeping and breeding the creatures, arguing that they help keep people interested in saving wildlife.

One activist group, the Nonhuman Rights Project, sued the Bronx Zoo in 2018, seeking to have Happy declared a "person" for legal purposes and moved to a large animal sanctuary. It was the first such case about an elephant, according to the group.

Citing a principle that's used to challenge the legality of a person's imprisonment, the activist group said Happy was "an extraordinarily cognitively complex and autonomous nonhuman being" who was unlawfully deprived of her liberty and suffered from being pent up in a exhibit without other elephants.

Zoo officials said Happy was assiduously cared for and had space for swimming, foraging and other natural behavior. Uprooting her from her longtime home could harm her, the zoo said.

New York's top court ultimately rejected the activists' claim, by a 5-2 majority. Colorado's highest court later issued a similar ruling about five elephants in a zoo there.

Still, two of the New York high court judges wrote pointed dissents. One called Happy's capti

Trump tells Congress ceasefire means he does not need their approval for Iran war

18 minutes agoSareen HabeshianTrump claims congressional approval for war 'has never been sought before'President Donald Trump has told Congress that US hostilities with Iran have "terminated" during an ongoing ceasefire, as he argued he did not need to meet a deadline for legislative approval of the war.By law, a US president must receive Congress' approval within 60 days of notifying lawmakers of military action, or else cease hostilities.But in a letter to congressional leaders, Trump said he does not have to comply with that war powers act as the ceasefire agreed with Iran last month had paused the clock on any such obligation.The US and Iran have not yet reached a longer-term peace deal via talks, though Iranian media reported a new proposal from Tehran sent via Pakistan on Friday.On the 60th day since he formally notified Congress of strikes against Iran, Trump wrote to congressional leaders on Friday: "There has been no exchange of fire between the United States Forces and Iran since April 7, 2026. "The hostilities that began on February 28, 2026 have terminated." According to Iranian state news agency IRNA, a proposal from Tehran for negotiations with the US was sent to Pakistan intermediaries. The news agency did not publish the details, and it's unclear if the proposal has reached the US.But Trump told reporters: "We just had a conversation with Iran. Let's see what happens. But, I would say that I am not happy."He said a deal has been hard to reach in part because Iranian leadership was "very confused", after a number of its top military officials were killed in the war.Trump said he was briefed with options by US Central Command on Thursday, ranging from "blast the hell out of them and finish them forever" to "make a deal".Later on Friday, Trump said: "they're not coming through with the kind of deal that we have to have. "And we're going to get this thing done properly. We're not going to leave early and then have the problem arise in three more years."Nothing in War Powers Act suggests 'pause' of hostilities changes law, says expertMeanwhile, the US Treasury has issued a notice warning that any individual or company that pays Iran a "toll" for passage through the Strait of Hormuz was at risk of violating US sanctions.The key shipping channel is still effectively closed - causing economic impacts around the world.In Congress, lawmakers have faced mounting questions about whether they intend to schedule a vote in each chamber to decide whether the war should receive formal authorisation.The relevant US law, the 1973 War Powers Resolution, makes certain requirements of a president "within sixty calendar days" of their use of US armed forces in combat.It requires a president to end the use of those forces unless Congress makes a formal declaration of war or allows the president an extension, up to 30 days in length, for the "prompt removal" of troops.The law was passed in 1973 to limit the ability of then-President Richard Nixon to continue waging war in Vietnam.Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth argued before a congressional hearing on Thursday that the clock had paused on the deadline to seek legislators' approval.Democratic Senator Tim Kaine responded: "I do not believe the statute would support that."Democratic-led attempts in both chambers of Congress to constrain Trump in the case of Iran have repeatedly failed. Most Republicans have opposed the Democratic efforts, though some have indicated they might reconsider their positions after the 60-day mark.Asked on Friday about seeking authorisation from Congress, Trump told reporters, "no other country has ever done it"."Most people consider it totally unconstitutional," he said.The Trump administration's interpretation of the War Powers Resolution has been questioned by some experts.Professor Heather Brandon-Smith, from Georgetown University Law in Washington DC, said that even if a ceasefire was legally in effect, it would not stop the clock."A ceasefire is not a perm

Trump repeats that he is 'not happy' with Iran as deadline to seek approval for war looms

2 hours agoJames FitzGerald and Brandon DrenonReutersThe defence secretary was responding to senators' questions on ThursdayUS Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has argued that the clock has paused on a deadline for the Trump administration to seek approval from Congress for the US-Israeli war with Iran.Hegseth was responding to questions from members of the Senate, or upper chamber, on Thursday. Friday is the 60th day since Trump formally notified Congress of the strikes against Iran on 2 March. US law requires a president to "terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" within 60 days of such a notification - unless Congress allows a continuation.A senior administration official said hostilities with Iran had "terminated", emphasising that a ceasefire had been in effect since early April.Despite the ceasefire, the two sides have not yet reached a longer-term deal via talks, though efforts to end the stalemate appear to be underway. Tehran has sent a proposal for negoatiations with the US to Pakistan intermediaries, Iranian state news agency IRNA reported. The news agency did not publish the details, and it's unclear if the proposal has reached the US.Oil prices, which have increased sharply since Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, dropped after news of Tehran's latest offer.

The key shipping channel is still effectively closed - causing economic impacts around the world.Answering questions from senators on Thursday, Hegseth said: "We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire." The questioner, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, responded: "I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow, and it's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration there."The relevant piece of US law, the decades-old War Powers Resolution, makes certain requirements of a president "within sixty calendar days" of their use of US armed forces within a combat. It requires them to end the use of those forces unless Congress makes a formal declaration of war or allows the president an extension, up to 30 days in length, for the "prompt removal" of troops.The legislation was passed in 1973 to limit the ability of then-President Richard Nixon to continue waging war in Vietnam.A senior Trump administration official said: "For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28 have terminated." The official highlighted that the initial two-week ceasefire had been extended, and said that there had been no exchange of fire between the US and Iran since 7 April.Some experts have questioned the Trump administration's interpretation of the legislation and whether legally a ceasefire is in effect."The secretary's claim about hostilities coming to an end does not match up to the evidence," said Prof Heather Brandon-Smith, from Georgetown University Law in Washington DC."Hostilities have not ceased. The US has instituted a blockade of Iranian ports. This is an act of war. This is hostility," she said.Brandon-Smith added that although the War Powers Resolution does not define "hostilities", the term was deliberately used to capture a broad range of conduct.The US blockade of Iranian ports "are clearly acts of hostilities that were intended to and do come under the War Powers Resolution," she said. Brandon-Smith stated that even if a ceasefire is legally in effect, it would not stop the clock on the 60-day timeframe."A ceasefire is not a permanent end to the conflict," she said. "To my mind, a permanent end to the conflict is what would actually sort of close up the 60 days."She said that the courts or Congress would be the only means to stop the war if the Trump administration continues the conflict.The BBC's US partner, CBS News, reported that administration officials were in active conversations with members of Congress about gaining congressional authorisation for the war.In the case of Iran, Democratic-l

Trump repeats that he is 'not happy' with Iran as deadline to seek approval for war looms

Are US and Iran close to peace or sliding back to war?

Are US and Iran close to peace or sliding back to war?

Discussion (0)

Happy, who taught researchers that elephants can recognize themselves, is euthanized

President Trump says he is reviewing a new Iranian proposal to end the war

Live Updates: Trump "not satisfied" with new peace deal offered by Iran as standoff's costs multiply

Trump tells Congress ceasefire means he does not need their approval for Iran war

Live updates: Trump says he’s ‘not satisfied’ with Iran’s newest peace plan