Putin, Xi criticise Israel's attacks on Iran, urge de-escalation
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping have called for de-escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran, following a call between the leaders.
The presidents showed a united front in their response to the escalating crisis on Thursday, after their shared geopolitical rival, the United States, indicated it had not ruled out joining Israel's strikes on Iran.
During the call, Xi called for 'major powers' to help cool the conflict, in a thinly veiled reference to Washington. Russia, which has a strategic cooperation pact with Tehran, says it has been urging the US not to strike Iran, warning it would dramatically destabilise the region and risk a nuclear disaster.
Following the call, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters that Putin and Xi 'strongly condemn Israel's actions, which violate the UN Charter and other norms of international law', news agencies reported.
Both leaders 'fundamentally believe that there is no military solution to the current situation and issues related to Iran's nuclear programme', he said, adding that a solution 'must be achieved exclusively through political and diplomatic means'.
Putin has presented his country as a potential mediator in the conflict over Iran's nuclear programme, but so far he has not been taken up on his offer.
Ushakov said that during the call, Putin reiterated his suggestion of mediating in the dispute, and Xi expressed his support, 'as he believes it could serve to de-escalate the current acute situation'.
Chinese state media reported that, during the call, Xi had called for all parties, 'especially Israel', to 'cease hostilities as soon as possible to prevent a cyclical escalation and resolutely avoid the spillover of the war'.
He added that 'major countries' with 'special influence' in the region should step up their diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation, Chinese state media reported, in an apparent reference to the US.
The leaders also remarked on the apparent friction between Western leaders at the recent G7 conference in Canada, Ushakov said.
'They noted the well-known rough edges that emerged in the relations between participants,' the Kremlin aide said, according to the Reuters news agency.
The G7, an informal club of major industrialised democracies, concluded its latest summit on Tuesday without leaders issuing a joint statement in support of Ukraine, as it had in recent years.
Trump, having made comments in support of Russia at the summit, left a day earlier than expected, making bellicose statements about Iran on his return that have fuelled fears of more direct US involvement in the conflict.
Moscow and Tehran signed a long-delayed strategic cooperation agreement in January, reinforcing ties between the allies who share an anti-US stance.
Although Russia has not yet provided Iran with weaponry, it has assisted with its contentious nuclear programme, which Tehran insists is for peaceful civilian purposes.
Speaking on the sidelines of the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum on Thursday, Putin said that more than 200 Russians were continuing to work at Iran's Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant, and that an agreement had been reached with Israel over their safety.
Xi made his first public comments on the crisis at a summit in Kazakhstan on Tuesday, saying he was 'deeply worried' about Israel's military operation against Iran.
Ushakov said Xi and Putin had agreed to keep in close contact in the coming days as the crisis unfolds. The leaders plan to next meet in China in late August at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting, the Kremlin aide said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Who decides who can have nuclear arms?
Inside Story Have the actions of Israel and the US increased the risks that more countries will want them? The United States and Israel attacked Iran, saying it could not have a nuclear weapon, which Tehran denied it was trying to build. The US and Israel are among nine countries armed with nuclear weapons. list of 3 items list 1 of 3 list 2 of 3 list 3 of 3 end of list So who decides who can have nuclear arms? And have the actions of Israel and the US increased the risks that more countries will want them? Presenter: Adrian Finighan Guests: Tariq Rauf, former head of verification and security policy coordination at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Laicie Heeley, a nuclear arms control and non-proliferation specialist, and editor-in-chief of Inkstick Media in Washington, DC. Tariq Ali, a historian and editor at the New Left Review journal in London. Video Duration 28 minutes 20 seconds 28:20 Video Duration 29 minutes 05 seconds 29:05 Video Duration 28 minutes 30 seconds 28:30 Video Duration 27 minutes 15 seconds 27:15 Video Duration 28 minutes 44 seconds 28:44 Video Duration 28 minutes 45 seconds 28:45 Video Duration 27 minutes 30 seconds 27:30
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why manufacturing consent for war with Iran failed this time
On June 22, American warplanes crossed into Iranian airspace and dropped 14 massive bombs. The attack was not in response to a provocation; it came on the heels of illegal Israeli aggression that took the lives of 600 Iranians. This was a return to something familiar and well-practised: an empire bombing innocents across the orientalist abstraction called 'the Middle East'. That night, US President Donald Trump, flanked by his vice president and two secretaries, told the world 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace'. There is something chilling about how bombs are baptised with the language of diplomacy and how destruction is dressed in the garments of stability. To call that peace is not merely a misnomer; it is a criminal distortion. But what is peace in this world, if not submission to the West? And what is diplomacy, if not the insistence that the attacked plead with their attackers? In the 12 days that Israel's illegal assault on Iran lasted, images of Iranian children pulled from the wreckage remained absent from the front pages of Western media. In their place were lengthy features about Israelis hiding in fortified bunkers. Western media, fluent in the language of erasure, broadcasts only the victimhood that serves the war narrative. And that is not just in its coverage of Iran. For 20 months now, the people of Gaza have been starved and incinerated. By the official count, more than 55,000 lives have been taken; realistic estimates put the number at hundreds of thousands. Every hospital in Gaza has been bombed. Most schools have been attacked and destroyed. Leading human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have already declared that Israel is committing genocide, and yet, most Western media would not utter that word and would add elaborate caveats when someone does dare say it live on TV. Presenters and editors would do anything but recognise Israel's unending violence in an active voice. Despite detailed evidence of war crimes, the Israeli military has faced no media censure, no criticism or scrutiny. Its generals hold war meetings near civilian buildings, and yet, there are no media cries of Israelis being used as 'human shields'. Israeli army and government officials are regularly caught lying or making genocidal statements, and yet, their words are still reported as the truth. A recent study found that on the BBC, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, despite Palestinians dying at a rate of 34 to 1 compared with Israelis. Such bias is no exception, it is the rule for Western media. Like Palestine, Iran is described in carefully chosen language. Iran is never framed as a nation, only as a regime. Iran is not a government, but a threat —not a people, but a problem. The word 'Islamic' is affixed to it like a slur in every report. This is instrumental in quietly signalling that Muslim resistance to Western domination must be extinguished. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons; Israel and the United States do. And yet only Iran is cast as an existential threat to world order. Because the problem is not what Iran holds, but what it refuses to surrender. It has survived coups, sanctions, assassinations, and sabotage. It has outlived every attempt to starve, coerce, or isolate it into submission. It is a state that, despite the violence hurled at it, has not yet been broken. And so the myth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction becomes indispensable. It is the same myth that was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. For three decades, American headlines have whispered that Iran is just 'weeks away' from the bomb, three decades of deadlines that never arrive, of predictions that never materialise. But fear, even when unfounded, is useful. If you can keep people afraid, you can keep them quiet. Say 'nuclear threat' often enough, and no one will think to ask about the children killed in the name of 'keeping the world safe'. This is the modus operandi of Western media: a media architecture not built to illuminate truth, but to manufacture permission for violence, to dress state aggression in technical language and animated graphics, to anaesthetise the public with euphemisms. Time Magazine does not write about the crushed bones of innocents under the rubble in Tehran or Rafah, it writes about 'The New Middle East' with a cover strikingly similar to the one it used to propagandise regime change in Iraq 22 years ago. But this is not 2003. After decades of war, and livestreamed genocide, most Americans no longer buy into the old slogans and distortions. When Israel attacked Iran, a poll showed that only 16 percent of US respondents supported the US joining the war. After Trump ordered the air strikes, another poll confirmed this resistance to manufactured consent: only 36 percent of respondents supported the move, and only 32 percent supported continuing the bombardment The failure to manufacture consent for war with Iran reveals a profound shift in the American consciousness. Americans remember the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis dead and an entire region in flames. They remember the lies about weapons of mass destruction and democracy and the result: the thousands of American soldiers dead and the tens of thousands maimed. They remember the humiliating retreat from Afghanistan after 20 years of war and the never-ending bloody entanglement in Iraq. At home, Americans are told there is no money for housing, healthcare, or education, but there is always money for bombs, for foreign occupations, for further militarisation. More than 700,000 Americans are homeless, more than 40 million live under the official poverty line and more than 27 million have no health insurance. And yet, the US government maintains by far the highest defence budget in the world. Americans know the precarity they face at home, but they are also increasingly aware of the impact US imperial adventurism has abroad. For 20 months now, they have watched a US-sponsored genocide broadcast live. They have seen countless times on their phones bloodied Palestinian children pulled from rubble while mainstream media insists, this is Israeli self-defence. The old alchemy of dehumanising victims to excuse their murder has lost its power. The digital age has shattered the monopoly on narrative that once made distant wars feel abstract and necessary. Americans are now increasingly refusing to be moved by the familiar war drumbeat. The growing fractures in public consent have not gone unnoticed in Washington. Trump, ever the opportunist, understands that the American public has no appetite for another war. And so, on June 24, he took to social media to announce, 'the ceasefire is in effect', telling Israel to 'DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,' after the Israeli army continued to attack Iran. Trump, like so many in the US and Israeli political elites, wants to call himself a peacemaker while waging war. To leaders like him, peace has come to mean something altogether different: the unimpeded freedom to commit genocide and other atrocities while the world watches on. But they have failed to manufacture our consent. We know what peace is, and it does not come dressed in war. It is not dropped from the sky. Peace can only be achieved where there is freedom. And no matter how many times they strike, the people remain, from Palestine to Iran — unbroken, unbought, and unwilling to kneel to terror. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Hey Daddy': How different world leaders massage Trump's ego
Describing Israel and Iran fighting each other at his NATO pre-summit news conference in The Hague this week, US President Donald Trump drew an analogy with children fighting in a schoolyard, who eventually had to be separated. 'Daddy has to sometimes use strong language,' Mark Rutte, NATO secretary-general, chimed in. Asked about the comment after the summit, Trump said: 'No, he likes me. I think he likes me. If he doesn't I'll let you know. I'll come back and hit him hard, OK? He did it very affectionately. Hey Daddy. You're my Daddy.' The White House decided Rutte was flattering the US president, and made a reel of Trump's visit to the Netherlands, set to the music of Usher's Hey Daddy. Rutte's flattery of Trump didn't stop there. On tackling the Russia-Ukraine war, Rutte told reporters before the NATO summit: 'When he came in office, he started the dialogue with President Putin, and I always thought that was crucial. And there's only one leader who could break the deadlock originally, and it had to be the American president, because he is the most powerful leader in the world.' But how sincere are world leaders' statements about Donald Trump? Do they genuinely serve to improve bilateral relations and does flattery work? Who has handled Trump well and what have the results been? Neither Rutte, nor any other European leader, engaged in any kind of dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a long time after the summer of 2022, the year of his invasion of Ukraine, believing it pointless. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was severely criticised as 'defeatist' for phoning Putin last November, while Hungary's Viktor Orban and Slovakia's Robert Fico, the only European leaders to have visited the Kremlin during the war, have been viewed as openly collaborationist. Yet when Trump started talks with Putin, many Europeans paid him the same compliment as Rutte when they made their inaugural visits to the White House after he took office in January. 'Thank you for changing the conversation to bring about the possibility that now we can have a peace deal, and we will work with you,' said the United Kingdom's prime minister, Keir Starmer, in the Oval Office in February. Starmer pulled a few rabbits out of hats. Knowing Trump's fondness for the notion of hereditary power, he drew from his jacket a letter from King Charles III containing an invitation for an unprecedented second state visit to Windsor Castle. Trump was momentarily speechless. 'Your country is a fantastic country, and it will be our honour to be there, thank you,' Trump said when he'd gathered himself. Starmer and Trump exchanged a few handshakes while speaking and Starmer repeatedly touched Trump's shoulder in a sign of affection. But did all this flattery have much effect? Trump announced he was freezing military aid to Ukraine the following month, much to the outrage of the UK, along with Nordic and Baltic countries. Both Starmer and Italy's prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, identified Ukraine as a key issue for Trump, who has made it clear he wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize by ending international conflicts. So far, he has claimed credit for ending this month's '12-Day War' between Israel and Iran, preventing nuclear war following the May 7 air battle between India and Pakistan, and overseeing a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. Meloni, therefore, tried a similarly flattering approach to Trump. 'Together we have been defending the freedom of Ukraine. Together we can build a just and lasting peace. We support your efforts, Donald,' she said during her White House visit in April. Meloni astutely punched all of Trump's hot-button issues in her opening remarks, saying Italy had policies to combat Fentanyl, an addictive painkiller that Trump has blamed Canada and Mexico for allowing into the country, to invest $10bn in the US economy and to control undocumented immigration. She even adapted Trump's slogan, Make America Great Again, to Europe. 'The goal for me is to Make the West Great Again. I think we can do it together,' Meloni said to a beaming Trump. None of this has translated into a state visit by Trump to Rome, a move which would cement Meloni's position as a major European leader, however. Meanwhile, newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was both flattering and firm with Trump last month. He complimented Trump on being 'a transformational president' who had sided 'with the American worker', but also shut down Trump's territorial ambition to annex Canada as the 51st US state. 'It's not for sale, won't be for sale ever,' Mark Carney said. Relations seemed to have taken a turn for the better following Trump's friction with Carney's predecessor, Justin Trudeau. Trump called him 'very dishonest and weak' at the 2018 G7 summit in Canada before storming off early. But Carney may not have had much effect at all. On Friday, Trump ended trade talks with Canada and threatened to impose additional tariffs on exports over Canada's new digital services tax. Which meetings have gone less well? There was little warmth in Trump's White House meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron in February. Braced for confrontation with a leader who claims to lead Europe in strategic thought, Trump spoke from lengthy, defensive, scripted remarks which attempted to justify his Ukraine policy. Macron preached that peace in Ukraine must not mean surrender – a sentiment shared by many European leaders, but not expressed to Trump. Trump was cordial with Macron, but not affectionate. Meanwhile, France is holding out on any sort of capitulation to Trump in European Union trade talks. Other members of the EU want to settle for an 'asymmetric' trade deal that might benefit the US more than the EU, just to get it done. What's more, following the G7 meeting in Canada two weeks ago, it was clear no love was lost between the two leaders: Trump called Macron 'publicity seeking' in a social media post on June 17. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was mauled by Trump and Vice President J D Vance on February 28, when he went to the White House to sign a mineral rights agreement he hoped would bring US military aid. He and Vance clashed over direct talks with Russia over Ukraine's head, and Vance lambasted Zelenskyy for failing to show enough 'gratitude' to the US. 'You're playing with millions of people's lives. You're gambling with World War Three,' said Trump. However, Zelenskyy and Trump appeared to have patched things up a little when they held an impromptu meeting while attending the funeral of Pope Francis at the Vatican in April. A White House spokesperson described the encounter as 'very productive'. Last month, Trump ambushed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House when he played him a video of a South African opposition party rally in favour of evicting white farmers. Trump accused South Africa of carrying out a 'genocide' against white farmers. Ramaphosa was visibly discomfited, but he patiently explained that under a parliamentary system, different viewpoints are expressed, which don't represent government policy, and that South Africa is a violent country where most victims of violence are Black. 'You are a partner of South Africa and as a partner you are raising concerns which we are willing to talk to you about,' Ramaphosa said, calming Trump a little. Trump was sidetracked into talking about a Jumbo Jet that Qatar had gifted him during his Middle Eastern tour. 'I'm sorry I don't have a plane to give you,' said Ramaphosa, as if to make a virtue of his absence of flattery. Does flattery work with Trump? Some experts believe that flattery may help to prevent confrontation with Trump. Some observers have argued it helps 'to contain the American president's impulses'. But flattery does little to change actual US policy. Rutte and other NATO leaders failed to draw the US back into the Contact Group helping Ukraine with weapons. 'A summit dedicated to the sole aim of making Trump feel good is one with very limited aims indeed. All it does is push the difficult decisions forward for another day,' wrote Andrew Gawthorpe, a lecturer in history and international studies at Leiden University, the Netherlands, in The Conversation, a UK publication. Those who do have good relations with Trump don't necessarily come away with the things they want, either. Starmer's US-UK trade deal keeps tariffs in place for British companies exporting to the US, albeit lower ones than Trump had been threatening. Meloni is still waiting for Trump to bestow her a visit. Respectful firmness, on the other hand, does seem to work. Trump has dropped his campaign to redraw US borders by absorbing Canada and Greenland, which is owned by Denmark. Carney's firmness helped, because it carried a sense of finality. Carney had just won an election and Trump acknowledged 'it was probably one of the greatest comebacks in the history of politics. Maybe even greater than mine.' Denmark has been similarly firm. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said existing agreements with the US already allow it to station military bases there, while Greenlanders don't want to be colonised by Americans. Trump's attempts to embarrass Zelenskyy and Ramaphosa also backfired. Europe has stepped in to make up the shortfall in US military aid to Ukraine, casting the US as a fickle ally. Trump's 'white genocide' video did little to convince Americans that South Africa was committing a genocide against Dutch Boers, and his offer of asylum to a number of them has been roundly criticised in the US.
