Connect with us

Foreign News

Trump berated Netanyahu? Analysts question US-Israel feud rumours

Published

on

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clasp hands after meeting at Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, on December 29 [Aljazeera]

In January 2024, the publication Axios reported that the United States president at the time, Joe Biden, was “running out of patience” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza had been raging for months by that point, and Biden was facing public backlash over US support for the conflict.

The assault would continue for the rest of Biden’s term and bleed into the first 10 months of Donald Trump’s second presidency.

Since then, media outlets have continued to publish anonymous accounts of rifts and “frustrating” calls between Trump and the Israeli prime minister. But US support for its Middle East ally has never wavered.

Another anonymously sourced report about a furious, expletive-laden call between US and Israeli leaders came out this week, and it spread rapidly across international media.

Axios reported on Monday that Trump called Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” and berated him over Israel’s escalation in Lebanon.

Around the same time, an Israeli attack killed six people, including two children, in the southern Lebanese town of al-Marwaniyah.

Experts say that despite leaks of feuds and harsh words between US leaders and Netanyahu, policies are ultimately what matters, and they have changed very little.

Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council Action (NIAC), said political observers have grown to “mock” reports of closed-door anger from US presidents against Netanyahu.

“What’s really important is what actually happens in practice,” Costello told Al Jazeera.

Though there are reports of Trump giving Netanyahu a dressing-down, Isabelle Hayslip, an advocacy manager at the US-based rights group DAWN, said that US policy remains aligned with Israeli interests.

“Single-source reporting of Trump as a strongman who picks up the phone and yells at Netanyahu for undermining US policy is contradicted by the actual policy outcomes where Netanyahu gets exactly what he wants,” Hayslip told Al Jazeera.

“Trump has no final say over Israeli actions. Like his predecessors, the president has proved completely unable to prioritise American interests, instead catering to Israel’s expansionist whims.”

The latest report comes as Trump faces increasing pressure from his Democratic rivals and segments of his base over his handling of the war on Iran, which he launched jointly with Netanyahu on February 28.

The conflict, which saw Iran close the Strait of Hormuz, has sent gasoline prices soaring in the US and fuelled inflation.

Critics have accused Trump of allowing Israel to drag the US into a war that does not advance Washington’s priorities.

With negotiations to end the war stagnating, Israel’s escalation in Lebanon and its threat to bomb Beirut risks derailing the fragile truce that came into effect in April.

Iranian officials have suggested that they cut off contact with the US over the Israeli attacks in Lebanon.

Before the Axios report, Trump announced he had spoken to Netanyahu and an unidentified Hezbollah representative, and both sides agreed that “all shooting will stop”.

But Netanyahu was quick to assert that the Israeli military “will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon”, where it is deepening its invasion and turning entire towns into rubble.

Advocates say Israeli atrocities in Lebanon and across the region could not have happened without US backing.

Since the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023, the US has provided Israel with nearly $25bn in military aid, helped fend off retaliatory Iranian attacks against the country and vetoed several ceasefire resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.

Nonetheless, anonymous accounts that the US president is angry at Netanyahu have become a regular feature in the media.

Such reports are attributed to US officials, but it is unclear how leaks with a similar message on the same topic have continued across two administrations from different political parties.

Publicly, aides of both Biden and Trump have largely refrained from criticising Israel.

Trump has regularly praised the Israeli prime minister, arguing on more than one occasion that Israel would have ceased to exist without Netanyahu’s leadership.

In December, the US president also called the Israeli prime minister a “hero” during a meeting in Florida.

“We’re with you, and we’ll continue to be with you,” Trump told Netanyahu.

Two weeks earlier, Axios reported that the White House had “scolded” Netanyahu over Israel’s ceasefire violations in Gaza.

“The White House message to Netanyahu was: ‘If you want to ruin your reputation and show that you don’t abide by agreements, be our guest, but we won’t allow you to ruin President Trump’s reputation after he brokered the deal in Gaza,” the publication quoted a US official as saying.

Few people know the exact content of high-level calls at the White House. Sometimes, top officials, including members of the National Security Council, sit in on conversations between the president and world leaders after briefings.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, a research nonprofit, said the leak about the tense call between Trump and Netanyahu may be aimed at making Trump look tough on Israel to quell outrage over the war.

“It could be sort of a way of moderating the anger or the blame at the US for continuing this unpopular, illegal, unnecessary war,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

She added that the message it sends is, “Look, we’re very angry at Israel. We yell at them. We call them names.”

But Mortazavi stressed that policy is more important than rhetoric: “Does that change the facts on the ground?”

For his part, Costello argued that the leak was likely directed at Iran.

“I see this one primarily as a signal to the Iranians that Trump is serious, and he wants to insulate what’s happening in Lebanon and Israel’s attacks from the Iran negotiations,” Costello said.

“It remains to be seen the extent to which that excoriation has actually led to a change in Israel’s policies, and I think there is a strong incentive for continued defiance from Netanyahu.”

Axios, meanwhile, has defended its coverage.

“We stand by our reporting, which by the way noted ‘Trump and Netanyahu have had several tense calls in the past but have still coordinated closely on Iran and other issues,’” Jake Wilkins, a spokesperson for the publication, told Al Jazeera in an email.

Mortazavi warned that all sides of the war on Iran are trying to influence public perceptions of the conflict.

She pointed to recent reports that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had resigned, a rumour that was promptly denied by his office.

“This is a very hybrid war. It’s a war on the battlefield. It’s an intelligence war. It’s a war of narratives,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “And then there’s also an information war,  which includes disinformation, half-truths and strategic leaks.”

[Aljazeera]



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Foreign News

Hundreds of cats stolen for food in Vietnam rescued by police, welfare group says

Published

on

By

More than 40 of the stolen cats have been reunited with their owners (BBC)

More than 400 cats destined for slaughter have been rescued in Vietnam after authorities dismantled an alleged feline theft ring, an animal welfare group has said.

Nine people have been arrested in connection with what police described as a “criminal group specialising in stealing and collecting cats”, according to the official newspaper of Ho Chi Minh City police.

Officers recovered more than 400 live cats and around 80 dead animals preserved on ice during raids on sites in Tay Ninh Province and Ho Chi Minh City last week. A further 21 cats were seized at a separate facility.

The consumption of dog and cat meat is legal in Vietnam, but vendors require permits that show the origin of animals.

Police said they tracked down the group on 11 June after investigating a spate of pet thefts in Ho Chi Minh City, according to local media reports.

The suspects admitted trapping and collecting cats across southern Vietnam over the past three years, police said. According to investigators, the suspects allegedly transported stolen cats to holding facilities before selling them on to traders, with transactions taking place every two to three days.

Around 40 of the stolen cats have since been reunited with their owners, Humane World for Animals said in a statement on Tuesday.

The organisation praised local authorities for “decisive action that has saved the lives of so many animals”, but said “a number had later died as a result of their ordeal.

It added that it was providing food and other supplies for animals still being held by police as evidence while the case continues.

Police said the investigation was ongoing and urged residents who believe their pets have been stolen to come forward to help identify recovered animals.

An estimated five million dogs and one million cats are captured, stolen, trafficked and slaughtered for meat in Vietnam each year, according to Humane World for Animals.

The organisation says pets are frequently stolen from homes, with dogs often seized using poisoned bait tasers and iron pincers, and cats with spring-loaded snares.

While the consumption of dog and cat meat remains more common in Vietnam than other Asian countries, campaigners say attitudes are changing.

A 2023 survey commissioned by Humane World for Animals found growing public opposition, particularly among younger people and pet owners, with majorities backing bans on both the dog and cat meat trades.

(BBC)

Continue Reading

Foreign News

‘Dancing girl’s’ bare torso restored in Indian textbook after backlash

Published

on

By

The Dancing Girl is a bronze figurine discovered in Mohenjo-daro dating back to 2600 BCE [BBC]

The “covered-up” image of a nude artefact has been withdrawn from an Indian school textbook after it sparked a massive backlash from historians and educationists.

The bronze sculpture – known as the Dancing girl from Mohenjo-daro – shows a girl standing with one hand on her hip and is one of the most recognisable artefacts from the Indus Valley civilisation.

But in a newly released grade nine textbook, the figurine’s torso was covered with dark shading, hiding its anatomical features.

After it created an uproar, officials said that the original image has been restored in the digital version of the book and that new print editions would also carry the unedited photo of the bronze sculpture.

After news broke of the inclusion of the modified image, historians had accused the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) – which drafted the textbook – of disfiguring the iconic artefact.

The NCERT, an autonomous organisation under the federal education ministry, oversees syllabus changes and textbook content for children taking exams under the government-run Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).

NCERT director Dinesh Saklani told reporters that the modified image would be withdrawn from the textbook.

“Following consultations with experts, the department is replacing the image of the Dancing Girl with its original version,” Saklani told ANI news agency.

The BBC has contacted Saklani for comment.

A chapter on the Indus Valley has been a staple in Indian school curriculum, and though the Dancing Girl sculpture has appeared in textbooks for decades – including in earlier versions of NCERT textbooks – its torso has never been censored in any way.

The NCERT has not yet shared a reason for introducing the modified image but media reports have speculated that it could be due to concerns over nudity.

ANI The new NCERT textbook for Grade 9 features the figurine with its torso covered in dark shading
A new textbook showed the figurine with its torso covered in dark shading [BBC]

An editorial in the Indian Express newspaper, which first broke the news, criticised the modification of the artifact, saying:

“The Dancing Girl has been significant not because it conforms to a blindfolded standard of modesty but because it embodies poise, confidence and unmistakable presence. If the task of education is to equip young people to engage with the world as it is, then NCERT would do better to trust both students, and women – both contemporary and millennia old – with a little more agency.”

The textbook is part of the NCERT’s new Arts Education Series, introduced under the latest National Education Policy (NEP) to integrate visual, performing and literary arts into mainstream schooling.

The Dancing Girl sculpture, which was discovered at Mohenjo-daro – one of the largest settlements of the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation – depicts a girl adorned with ornaments with her hair tied in a bun.

Her posture captures the human body in motion and archaeologists have long considered the sculpture to be of great artistic value and evidence of the civilisation’s advanced knowledge of metallurgy.

The sculpture is currently housed in the National Museum in Delhi.

[BBC]

Continue Reading

Foreign News

Tehran selling deal with US as victory – but for Iranians it was necessity

Published

on

By

Iran’s leadership is trying to present its emerging memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US not as a retreat, but as the result of resistance and victory. That is not an easy argument to make.

The country has just gone through a damaging war, the economy is under severe pressure, and parts of the Islamic Republic’s own support base have spent months denouncing any compromise with Washington.

There are also Iranians, both inside the country and abroad, who see the crisis not as a moment for diplomacy, but as an opportunity for regime change.

This is the divided political landscape in which Tehran is now trying to sell the deal.

Senior Iranian officials have framed the deal as a win. Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the Speaker of parliament and the leading Iranian figure in the talks, said Iran had taken “a long step towards final victory”.

President Masoud Pezeshkian has described the understanding as potentially transformative, saying that if fully implemented it could resolve many of Iran’s problems and create “a different world” in Iran and the Middle East.

Qalibaf’s role is significant because he is not identified with Pezeshkian’s moderate camp; his public support suggests the deal has backing from more powerful parts of the system even within Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards.

The leadership is also presenting the agreement as a victory because, in Tehran’s argument, the US and Israel failed to achieve their main objectives.

They did not force Iran into surrender, did not remove the Islamic Republic from power, did not end Iran’s nuclear programme through military action, and did not break Iran’s links to Hezbollah.

Instead, Iran is still at the negotiating table, with Lebanon included in the framework and sanctions relief being discussed.

But this official narrative is contested inside Iran.

One hard-line MP, the deputy chair of parliament’s National Security Committee, has reportedly described the draft deal as a document that would turn Iran into an American colony.

He also accused negotiators of ignoring the supreme leader’s directive not to re-open the Strait of Hormuz to shipping.

That criticism matters because it does not come from outside the system. It comes from within one of the institutions meant to oversee national security.

For months, hard-line voices in parliament, state-aligned media and nightly pro-government gatherings have argued that the US cannot be trusted.

They point to the fact that diplomacy was still taking place shortly before the war began, and say the Trump administration used negotiations as cover while Israel and the US prepared military action. For them, any deal with Washington risks looking like appeasement.

Yet some of these voices appear quieter now. That may suggest that the decision to proceed has been authorised from the highest levels of the state. It does not mean there is full unity.

It might suggest that, for now, the centre of power has judged that the cost of rejecting a deal may be greater than the cost of absorbing hard-line anger.

EPA Two Iranian women walk past a wall painting of Iran's national flag on a street in Tehran.

Economic pressure is central to that calculation.

Iran’s leadership may present the agreement as the result of military leverage, including pressure around the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on US and regional energy interests. But the economy has also forced Tehran’s hand.

The war, sanctions, restrictions on shipping, reduced access to oil markets and hard currency, and very high inflation have all squeezed the country and ordinary Iranians.

For many families, the question is not whether the agreement sounds like victory, but whether it lowers prices and reduces fear of another round of war.

US Vice-President JD Vance has said Iran would not receive taxpayer money but could gain access to billions of dollars if it fulfills its commitments and sanctions are eased. That allows Tehran to sell the deal as a path to investment and reconstruction rather than dependency on America.

Still, the risks are obvious. The details of the memorandum have not been fully published, and negotiations are expected to begin in Switzerland on Friday.

The most difficult issues, the future of Iran’s enriched uranium, the level of enrichment allowed, verification, sanctions relief, Hormuz and Lebanon, remain to be discussed in the talks.

There is also uncertainty over Israel. Its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has rejected reports that Israel will withdraw from southern Lebanon, saying Israeli forces will remain in Lebanon for as long as necessary.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, has publicly criticised Israel’s conduct in Lebanon, saying too many people have been killed. He also said he was unhappy with an Israeli strike on Beirut shortly before the Iran-US deal was reached, while insisting his relationship with Netanyahu remained excellent.

For Tehran, this visible friction between Washington and Israel is useful. It can be presented as evidence that Iran’s pressure has complicated Israel’s freedom of action. But it also makes the deal fragile.

If Israel continues operations in Lebanon, Iran will face pressure to respond. If Washington cannot restrain Israel, Tehran’s claim that Lebanon is covered by the memorandum may quickly be tested.

The reaction from BBC Persian’s audience suggests the official victory narrative is landing unevenly.

One audience member said they had been very worried about another Israeli attack, but even after hearing about the agreement, they had “no trust” and were worried about whether the country would be properly managed if the deal lasted.

Another anti-regime Iranian, who initially supported US military action, asked what the US attack had achieved, since if it did not lead to political change in Iran: “Our hope was that the ruling system would change. But apart from misery, inflation, and further damage to the economy, what benefit did it have for people?”

Others were more sympathetic to the government’s line. One audience member described Iran as the winner, saying the war showed sanctions are lifted not through “begging”, but through the use of power.

Another welcomed the agreement more cautiously, saying it allowed people to return to work and life with greater peace of mind. “I think it is temporary,” they said, “but we needed a few months of breathing space and calm.”

That may be the most realistic reading. The Islamic Republic is selling the deal as victory because it cannot easily sell it as necessity.

But for many Iranians, its success will not be measured by slogans. It will be measured by whether the war stops, whether prices ease, whether sanctions relief arrives, and whether the leadership can manage the next phase without another sudden escalation.

[BBC]

Continue Reading

Trending