&w=3840&q=100)
Trump 'caught off guard' by Israeli strikes in Syria, Gaza: White House
AP Washington
President Donald Trump was caught off guard by the recent Israeli strikes in Syria and on a Catholic church in Gaza, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday.
Her comments were a rare suggestion of daylight between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who have often been aligned on politics and foreign policy, particularly with the recent attacks on Iran's nuclear programme.
However, Trump is pushing for an end to the war in Gaza and trying to support the new Syrian government as the country emerges from years of civil war, and Israeli military operations have threatened to complicate those initiatives.
An Israeli attack last week hit the Gaza Strip's only Catholic church, killing three people and stirring outrage. In addition, Israel intervened during the latest outbreak of sectarian violence in Syria, even bombing the capital, Damascus.
Leavitt told reporters that Trump has a good working relationship with Netanyahu but he was caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of a Catholic church in Gaza.
In both accounts, the president quickly called the prime minister to rectify those situations, Leavitt said.
Trump's special envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, told The Associated Press that Israel's intervention in Syria creates another very confusing chapter and came at a very bad time.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Ten years after US Supreme Court's ‘Obergefell' judgment legalised same-sex marriage, an erosion of LGBTQIA+ rights
Written by Kanav N Sahgal June 26 marked the 10-year anniversary of Obergefell vs Hodges — the landmark US Supreme Court ruling that legalised same-sex marriage in the country. While some activists celebrated the anniversary, others decried how drastically the legal and political landscape has regressed for LGBTQIA+ people since that historic victory. Backlash against the LGBTQIA+ community, especially transgender individuals, is on the rise across the United States. But more tellingly, the US Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the years since Obergefell has shifted sharply to the right — limiting rather than expanding LGBTQIA+ rights in a range of arenas: Education, public accommodation law and, more recently, healthcare access. During this time, the Court has also routinely upheld religious objections to LGBTQIA+ equality in four separate cases — most recently, just days ago, in the case of Mahmoud vs Taylor, where the Court ruled that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school instruction involving LGBTQIA+-themed storybooks based on religious free exercise rights. Two previous cases — one in 2018 (Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission) and another in 2023 (303 Creative LLC vs Elenis) — involved business owners who operated public accommodations and approached the Court seeking permission to deny same-sex couples' access to services. In both cases, the Supreme Court sided with the business owners, holding that enforcing anti-discrimination laws in these contexts would violate their First Amendment rights. In another case from 2021, Fulton vs City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of a Catholic foster care agency that refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. This list is not exhaustive — and does not even include the Court's recent rulings that have sharply curtailed legal protections for transgender people. But why this shift? One obvious reason is that the composition of the US Supreme Court has changed drastically over the past decade. During his first term as president, Donald Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Court — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — giving the nine-member bench a comfortable conservative supermajority. These three joined three other conservative-leaning justices already on the bench, forming a solid conservative bloc of six. This left only three Democratic appointees on the Court, unable to influence outcomes unless at least two conservative justices defected to their side. Also, unlike in previous decades, it has now become increasingly rare to find justices who cross ideological lines or serve as moderating influences. In the past, several justices — though appointed by Republican presidents — maintained a degree of independence in their rulings. Take, for example, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor, both of whom, despite being Republican appointees, did at various times cast decisive swing votes in landmark LGBTQIA+ rights cases. Justice Kennedy famously authored the majority opinion in Obergefell and provided the crucial fifth vote that allowed the decision to take effect. Yet, just a few years later, he ruled against LGBTQIA+ plaintiffs in Masterpiece Cakeshop, authoring the majority opinion there as well. Similarly, Justice O'Connor cast the fifth and deciding vote in Bowers vs Hardwick (1986), a case that upheld laws criminalising sodomy. But in 2003, she joined the majority in Lawrence vs Texas, which overturned Bowers and effectively decriminalised consensual same-sex intimacy nationwide. It would be difficult, if not downright impossible, to imagine or expect the current crop of conservative justices to display that kind of openness to LGBTQIA+ issues today. But a second, less frequently discussed reason for the weakening of jurisprudence on LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States comes from the Obergefell decision itself. While Obergefell legalised same-sex marriage nationwide, it also included a carveout that acknowledged the rights of individuals with 'decent and honourable religious or philosophical' objections to continue holding dissenting views on same-sex marriage. Ironically, this one sentence — arguably obiter dicta, and therefore not necessarily binding precedent — has since been repeatedly invoked by the Supreme Court's conservative majority again and again. In Mahmoud, for instance, the conservative bloc relied on Obergefell to explicitly justify parents' religious objections to LGBTQIA+ themed story books being read to their children. In a similar vein, the conservative bloc's resistance to substantive due process claims in the context of LGBTQIA+ rights has also intensified in recent times, most notably since the reversal of Roe vs Wade (1973) in Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organisation (2022). There, in his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called for the Court to reconsider Obergefell, suggesting rather unequivocally that if the logic employed in Dobbs were to be applied consistently, then the constitutional foundation for same-sex marriage may also fail to survive renewed judicial scrutiny. Ten years after Obergefell, therefore, same-sex marriage remains a legal right — but the broader legal framework supporting it has been deeply eroded by the US Supreme Court, and there appears to be little hope for reversal in the near future. The writer is a researcher at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and visiting faculty at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
AI. Digital skills. Critical thinking. Is your child prepared for tomorrow's world?
Putin Dollar Shock For Trump After BRICS Declaration? Russia's Big De-Dollarisation Announcement Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov clarified that BRICS nations don't aim to replace the US dollar, but rather seek alternatives for mutual settlements to circumvent US sanctions. He stated BRICS intends to trade in national currencies, with Russia already conducting 90% of payments with partners in local denominations. This counters US President Trump's concerns and threats of tariffs on BRICS countries, who are also developing "BRICS Pay," a decentralized blockchain payment system for cross-border transactions. 42.2K views | 1 day ago
NDTV
28 minutes ago
- NDTV
A Month After Ceasefire With Israel, Iranians Fear Another War
Iran: The ceasefire that ended Iran's 12-day war with Israel has held for nearly a month without incident, but many Iranians remain uneasy, struggling with uncertainty as fears of another confrontation linger. "I don't think this ceasefire will last," said Peyman, a 57-year-old resident of Shiraz in Iran's south, one of numerous cities hit last month as Israel unleashed an unprecedented bombing campaign against its staunch rival. The Israeli offensive targeted key nuclear facilities and military sites, killing top commanders and nuclear scientists and hundreds of other people, while also wreaking havoc in some residential areas. The attacks triggered the fiercest fighting in history between the longtime foes, ending with a ceasefire announced on June 24. But Israel has signalled it could return to fighting if Iran attempts to rebuild nuclear facilities or carry out any actions deemed a threat, such as moving to develop an atomic bomb -- an ambition Tehran has consistently denied it was pursuing. Iran, in turn, has vowed to deliver a harsh response if attacked again. Nuclear diplomacy with the United States -- which briefly joined the war with strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites -- has stalled, deepening a sense of uncertainty about what lies ahead. "I am scared the war would start again," said Hamid, a 54-year-old government employee who gave only his first name. "It will lead to the death of more innocent people and the destruction of the country's infrastructure." During the war, Israel struck major Iranian cities, including the capital Tehran, hitting military sites, government buildings, and the state television headquarters. More than 1,000 people were killed in Iran, according to authorities. Retaliatory missile and drone attacks killed 29 people in Israel. 'Don't want to flee again' Many residents fled Tehran, seeking refuge in other parts of the country, even though few regions were untouched by the blasts and smoke-covered skies. Nearly a month later, a series of fires that broke out across Iran in recent days -- including one at a major oil facility -- have triggered speculations which officials were quick to dismiss, denying any acts of sabotage. "This war really frightened me," said 78-year-old housewife Golandam Babaei, from the western Kermanshah province. She lived through the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, a painful memory for many of her generation. "I kept telling myself, please God, do not let the past repeat itself," Babaei told AFP. The war with Israel, although much shorter and fought mostly with air strikes and missiles rather than by ground forces, revived grim memories of the conflict with Iraq. That war, triggered by an Iraqi invasion in 1980, killed an estimated 500,000 people on both sides. It featured chemical warfare and prolonged front-line bombardments, scarring Iranians in the then-nascent Islamic Republic born out of the 1979 revolution. Since then, for decades, Iran had managed to keep conflicts away from its territory. But now, after the 12-day war with Israel, some Iranians feel a profound sense of vulnerability. "I kept thinking I don't want to flee again, we have nowhere to go. I cannot run to the mountains like the past," said Babaei. Uncertain future For Ali Khanzadi, a 62-year-old war veteran, the conflict with Israel highlighted a change compared to the 1980s, when "we didn't have any advanced military equipment" to fight the Iraqis. Khanzadi, who was wounded in battle in 1983, said that the war with Israel, while much shorter, had a more sinister dimension. Unlike in the past, modern military technology means "they can kill a child in his sleep remotely using a drone," he said. In the face of the Israeli threats and attacks, Iranian authorities have repeatedly invoked national unity. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said the offensive was aimed at toppling the Islamic republic's clerical system, and urged Iranian diplomats and military officials to proceed with "care and precision" as the country cautiously moves on. Tehran has said it remained open to nuclear diplomacy with the United States, which the war had derailed, but officials have expressed concerns over renewed attacks and demanded unspecified US guarantees to resume negotiations. Ordinary Iranians appear to share fears that the conflict could erupt again. "I hope that this will not happen," said Hamid. Babaei said she was praying "for peace, for us to remain safe in our homes".
