Trump's ‘both sides' approach to Israel, Iran comes into question
President Trump's strategy of playing both sides is coming into question as he fumed over Israel and Iran's continued fighting while demanding peace in the region.
The president was so frustrated Tuesday morning he dropped an expletive on the White House lawn on his way to the NATO summit, contending that the two adversaries 'don't know what the f— they're doing.'
He also offered a window into his handling of the situation in which he stressed criticism mostly for Israel but also Iran in his quest to end the fighting: 'All I do is play both sides.'
Whether Trump's strategy to have a foot in each camp will be successful depends on if Israel and Iran will abide by his desire to stop fighting in the long term, but some foreign policy experts think it will take more disciplined diplomacy to reach a peaceful end.
Elliott Abrams, U.S. special representative for Iran during Trump's first term, argued that if the administration took a more subdued approach and called on Israel to de-escalate instead of retaliate when Iran continued strikes, Trump would have likely not gone on his 'tirade' on Tuesday.
'With the announcement of the ceasefire and the Iranians cheating, the Israelis were going to respond. They did respond. And I think that had he or Rubio called Netanyahu and said, 'We don't want to lose the ceasefire. So how do you plan to respond? And, don't blow up Tehran, do something moderate.' That would have worked,' Abrams said. 'There was no need for a public and private tirade.'
Abrams contended that while Trump may have been posturing toward both countries, his public outburst did the situation few favors.
'You never know with Trump how much is performative, but I think there was no need for what he did,' added Abrams, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Trump allies have argued that the president's flexibility and willingness to pivot on a dime is an asset, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. Where critics see Trump as having few strongly held beliefs and a lack of commitment to long-standing allies, the president's supporters see him as able to shift his tone and approach to get whatever result he desires.
White House officials this week have trumpeted that 'only' Trump could have produced the results he did with Iran, a nod to his unorthodox approach that can change from day to day or hour to hour depending on the situation.
Fred Fleitz, vice chair of the America First Policy Institute's Center for American Security, argued some tension between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to be expected, but he emphasized that Trump is unwaveringly pro-Israel despite his public frustrations.
'Netanyahu is not Trump's puppet, and he has to look out for the interests of his nation, not simply do what Trump tells him to do,' Fleitz said. 'And I think that creates conflict from time to time.'
One Trump ally noted that the Iran-Israel conflict was far from the first time the president has deployed an 'all sides' approach. They argued Trump has used it at times when addressing the war in Ukraine, alternately attacking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and bellowing that he is unhappy with Russian President Vladimir Putin as he attempts to bring the two sides to the negotiating table.
A version of that was also on full display Tuesday as Trump posted a cascade of Truth Social posts as he was flying to the Netherlands for the NATO summit this week. While he left the White House just after sunrise in a huff, his Truth Social posts soon began suggesting that the ceasefire was holding and that he was telling Israel to turn their planes around.
By the time Trump spoke to reporters on Air Force One, he relayed that he spoke to Netanyahu and that he was optimistic a truce would hold.
'The ceasefire is very much in effect, and I think we're going to keep it there for a long time,' he said.
'I said, 'You got to turn back the planes.' And there was going to be a retaliation this morning by Israel and I said, 'You got to call back the planes. It's enough, it's enough.' And they did, which I respect very greatly,' he said.
By late Tuesday, the ceasefire appeared to have been held by both Israel and Iran with few if any reports of Tehran striking Israel after Trump's earlier remarks. Trump said there wouldn't be consequences for the fighting that occurred overnight when the ceasefire was supposed to initially begin.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the most hawkish Trump allies in Congress, argued in response to Trump's outburst that Israel and Iran can't be lumped together.
'I can understand his frustration, but there's no moral equivalency between Iran and Israel,' Graham said on Fox News. 'Israel is our friend, Iran is our enemy.'
The U.S. entered into a days-long conflict between Israel and Iran when it struck three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday with some of the most powerful ammunition in the U.S. arsenal.
Iran struck back Monday with several missiles over Qatar where a large U.S. military base is located but gave fair warning to the U.S. before doing so, which prevented casualties, according to Trump.
Trump announced the parameters of a ceasefire deal later Monday, but fighting between Iran and Israel continued overnight, much to the president's chagrin Tuesday morning.
Abrams said he was surprised that Trump was upset with Israel and Iran, but added, 'another thing you never know … what is the factual basis for his comment.'
He added, 'God knows what someone said to him over the phone or what tweet he read that set him off. He may actually not have understood the situation.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
The 1600: America Doesn't Have a Conservative Party
The Insider's Track Good morning, I paid $8 for a black iced coffee yesterday in my neighborhood. Eight. Dollars. Sometimes I think most of the underlying rage you see bubbling up around the country can be attributed to this feeling of just being constantly ripped off wherever you go. Speaking of getting ripped off, Congress is in the process of stitching up the votes on President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" flagship legislation in hopes of getting it to his desk by the Fourth. Following a narrow 51–49 procedural vote over the weekend, the Senate advanced the bill to the debate stage, with Senators Rand Paul and Thom Tillis joining all Democrats in opposition. Targeted by MAGA for his disloyalty, Tillis immediately announced he's not running for re-election, thus putting NC potentially in play for Senate Dems next year (the modern GOP has no room for actual conservatives). So once the Senate passes the bill, it gets kicked back to the House as part of the reconciliation process before going to Trump. I'd put it at extremely likely that this giant turd of a bill becomes law in time for the fireworks on Friday. So what's in this thing? It's mostly an extension of the 2017 tax cuts, with some deep cuts to the welfare state for good measure. The current Senate version raises the debt ceiling $5 trillion. It'll increase the deficit by some $3 trillion over the next decade, per the Congressional Budget Office. (I've seen lots of Trump supporters attack the CBO for its scoring of this bill as some kind of "lefty" organization. Please. The CBO is run by a Bush appointee). The bill uses this well-worn accounting trick to make it look like Republicans are actually reducing the deficit by $508 billion, as Lindsey Graham falsely claimed over the weekend. But that's based on this little gimmick that lets them basically write off the $4 trillion cost of extending the tax cuts. So when you see Republicans tossing around that $508B number this week, it should immediately set off your B.S. detector. Here's some other random little tidbits that caught my eye in the current manifestation of the bill: A huge cut in SNAP benefits and food assistance for the poor, plus another $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare (but mostly Medicaid). Millions will probably lose their coverage. This is the provision that Dems could run with as a winning message for the midterms, if they aren't too busy fighting for trans girls in sports or whatever. A tax on remittances, which is the money that immigrants send home, has been watered down to effectively be meaningless. House Rs passed a 5% tax on remittance, which was cut to 3.5% by the Senate, and then further to 1%. It also doesn't apply to bank transfers. This is one of those things I don't understand. It's a tax on US dollars flowing out of the country. Who is the lobby pushing Senate Rs against this? Western Union? On the energy front, the bill phases out Biden's tax credits for solar and wind—not surprising—while adding an excise tax on new renewable projects that utilize components made in China. At the same time, there's provisions tucked in there to incentivize domestic coal production. Making Coal Great Again, baby. Our children will be ashamed of us. Thankfully, the bill no longer includes Sen. Mike Lee's provision to sell off millions of acres of pristine federal land in the West to developers after an outcry from (actual) conservative voters. Teddy Roosevelt would've been spinning in his grave. The bottom line is that this legislation acts as a giant wealth transfer from the poor to the rich and the young to the old. Younger earners get nothing from the tax cuts, which are all structured to benefit higher-earners. It adds trillions to the national debt, which means higher taxes and mortgage payments for young Americans trying to start or build their families. One nonpartisan analysis suggests a 40-year-old making the median income will lose $7,500 over their lifetime, while a 70-year-old with the same income nets $17,500. The Boomers win, as always. And then we wonder why young voters turn out in record numbers in our most expensive city to elect a socialist. If this is the alternative, why wouldn't they? If this whole charade does anything, it should finally disabuse Americans of this notion that modern-day Republicans are the conservative party. You simply cannot be an actual conservative while voting to increase the debt, adding to the deficit, all while doing precisely nothing to deal with our spending problem. The Rundown A fierce war of words has erupted between Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Donald Trump following recent U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Khamenei accused Trump of "exaggerating in order to cover up and conceal the truth," directly responding to Trump's claim that the U.S. had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites. Separately, Trump said that he is offering Iran "nothing" and is refusing to engage with Iranian officials, signaling a hardening U.S. stance. Read more. Also happening: US-Canada trade talks: Canada and the United States have resumed trade negotiations after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed to rescind the country's digital services tax on U.S. technology companies. The development follows President Donald Trump's announcement on Friday that he was suspending all trade talks with Canada "effective immediately" over the tax policy. Here's the latest. Week in review: President Donald Trump is coming off what may be his most successful week in office—a landmark Supreme Court ruling, a successful NATO summit, a ceasefire that appears to be holding in the Middle East, another peace deal in Africa, a stock market back to setting records and a key trade breakthrough with China. Read more. This is a preview of The 1600—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Last-minute changes to Senate's 'big, beautiful bill' stun clean energy industry (and Elon Musk)
The Senate is making a final push to advance President Trump's signature legislation with a flurry of last-minute changes that stunned Elon Musk and the already besieged clean energy industry while offering new support for fossil fuels. The controversy surrounding the bill's energy approach is just one front in a frenzied final push with plenty of additional attention on the price tag after a new weekend tally found that bill has grown by nearly $1 trillion since the Senate took it up. Meanwhile a grueling final Senate push to approve the package cleared a key procedural hurdle over the weekend, with consideration continuing and an amendment process expected to take up much of Monday before a final vote later Monday or perhaps Tuesday. The energy provisions of the 900-plus page bill have come in for particular scrutiny after last minute changes phased out clean energy tax credits faster than expected and also added new taxes on wind and solar projects. At the same time, new last minute inducements were unveiled for fossil fuels, including one classifying coal as a critical mineral when it comes to a government manufacturing credit. "We're doing coal," Trump said in an interview released over the weekend on Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures" where he also called solar energy projects "ugly as hell." The mix left fossil fuel advocates celebrating and clean energy advocates slamming the bill at a new higher volume. Tesla (TSLA) CEO Musk — who worked in the White House before his dramatic falling out with the president — was perhaps the loudest voice in the latter group. He issued a series of weekend posts calling the bill "utterly insane and destructive [with] handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." The energy changes came as top-line costs of the deal remained a key point of contention. A nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tally released over the weekend showed the revised bill would add at least $3.3 trillion to the national debt. That assessment, which does not include additional interest costs, comes after a similar analysis of the House package found a $2.4 trillion tab. Trump suggested Republicans look past the deficit implications in one of his weekend posts, urging passage as soon as possible saying he also wants to cut costs but adding to lawmakers: "REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected." He also made a case that White House projections of blockbuster economic growth (dismissed by many economists as fantastical) will make the math add up in the end. The focus on energy comes after weeks of debate over Biden-era energy credits. The initial Senate blueprint had offered a slower rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles but last minute changes to the bill put it more in line with the harder line House version which seeks to eliminate the credits sooner. Some provisions are even more immediate with the Senate version proposing to eliminate EV credits by September 30 of this year. And on top of that, a new tax was unveiled when the bill was released that would not just eliminate government help for renewable energy projects — but add a new cost for wind and solar projects completed after 2027 if a certain amount of supplies came from China. The changes stunned many clean energy advocates — not just Musk — with a statement from the American Clean Power Association saying the effect would be to "strand hundreds of billions of dollars in current investments." What that could means for consumers down the road — some concluded — are higher utility bills as currently under construction AI data centers are set to increase electricity demand in the years ahead. Some are even projecting double digit price increases in some utility bills by 2029. An analysis from the left-leaning Center for American Progress found that the bill would exacerbate existing upward pressure on utility prices, with Democratic Senator Brian Schatz adding "we are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar." Fossil fuels advocates meanwhile were largely ebullient at the last minute changes which saw existing fossil fuel focused provisions — around issues like permitting, lease sales, and methane emissions fees — joined by some new credits for these producers including for coal. Senate Republicans say the bill will generate over $15 billion in new federal revenue through expanded oil, gas, and coal leasing with leaders with Senator John Barasso of Wyoming saying "America is an energy superpower and once again, we are going to act like it." The bill is also set to be even more expensive after weeks of negotiations saw expensive compromises on issues like state and local tax (SALT) deductions, more generous business tax credits, and the adjustment of some cost savings around Medicaid. The fullest accounting came over the weekend when the CBO estimated the Senate bill would increase the debt by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034. The analysis also found that 11.8 million additional Americans would become uninsured by 2034 because of the health care provisions — an increase over the findings for the House-passed version that tallied that 10.9 million people would be without health coverage of that version passed. The bill is projected to be even more expensive after things like interest costs are included, with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget protecting the current total tally as in the neighborhood of $3.5 to $4.2 trillion over the next decade. "The debt impact could rise as high as $4.5 trillion if various rumored adjustments are made," the group added of potential additional changes still to come. The findings also come as Senate Republicans push forward on a budget gimmick that is set to hide $3.8 trillion in red ink using a "current policy baseline" that Democrats say violated Senate rules but appears set to proceed. Either way the sky-high debt findings could imperil the bill politically, with two GOP senators already likely to vote no and others not yet saying they will back Trump's effort to get this over the line in the coming hours. The bill will also need to be approved by the House if the amended package advances and is then considered by a bloc of fiscal conservatives there who say they barely voted in May for that less expensive version. One initial comment from the House Freedom Caucus was negative, with the group writing that the new tally was above "our agreed budget framework." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans try to get Trump's tax cuts over the line, setting aside cost concerns
By Richard Cowan and Bo Erickson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Senate Republicans on Monday will try to pass President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, despite divisions within the party about its expected $3.3 trillion hit to the nation's debt pile. They were set for a marathon session in which the minority Democrats are allowed to offer an unlimited number of votes, part of the arcane process Republicans are using to bypass Senate rules that normally require 60 of the chamber's 100 members to agree on legislation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its assessment on Sunday of the bill's hit to the $36.2 trillion debt, figuring that it would add about $800 billion more than the version passed last month in the House of Representatives. Many Republicans dispute that claim, contending that extending existing policy will not add to the debt. Nonetheless, international bond investors see incentives to diversify out of the U.S. Treasury market. Democrats, meanwhile, hope the latest, eye-widening figure could stoke enough anxiety among fiscally minded conservatives to get them to buck their party, which controls both chambers of Congress. 'Republicans are doing something the Senate has never, never done before, deploying fake math and accounting gimmicks to hide the true cost of the bill," Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Sunday. "Republicans are about to pass the single most expensive bill in U.S. history to give tax breaks to billionaires while taking away Medicaid, SNAP benefits and good-paying jobs for millions of people." The Senate narrowly advanced the tax-cut, immigration, border and military spending bill in a procedural vote late on Saturday, voting 51-49 to open debate on the 940-page megabill. One powerful illustration of the Republican divide came on Sunday when Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said he would not seek re-election, after Trump threatened to back a challenger to him in next year's midterm elections over his vote against the bill. Trump on social media has hailed the progress as a "great victory" for his "great, big, beautiful bill." In a separate post on Sunday, he said: "We will make it all up, times 10, with GROWTH, more than ever before." Trump wants the bill passed before the July 4 Independence Day holiday. While that deadline is one of choice, lawmakers will face a far more serious deadline later this summer when they must raise the nation's self-imposed debt ceiling or risk a devastating default. If the Senate succeeds in passing the bill, it will then go to the House, where members are also divided, with some angry about its cost and others worried about cuts to the Medicaid program. Republicans can afford to lose no more than three votes in either chamber to pass a bill the Democrats are united in opposition to. HITS TO BENEFITS The legislation was the sole focus of a marathon weekend congressional session marked by political drama, division and lengthy delays as Democrats seek to slow the legislation's path to passage. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the other Republican "no" vote, opposed the legislation because it would raise the federal borrowing limit by an additional $5 trillion. The megabill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative achievement during his first term as president, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Senate Republicans, who reject the CBO's estimates on the cost of the legislation, are set on using an alternative calculation method that does not factor in costs from extending the 2017 tax cuts. Outside tax experts, like Andrew Lautz from the nonpartisan think tank Bipartisan Policy Center, call it a "magic trick." Using this calculation method, the Senate Republicans' budget bill appears to cost substantially less and seems to save $500 billion, according to the BPC analysis. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
