Despite clashes with US presidents, Netanyahu usually gets his way, World News
JERUSALEM — A little over a month ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to have been shunted to the shadows by US President Donald Trump, who hopscotched the Middle East without visiting Israel, traditionally Washington's closest regional ally.
Worse still, from Netanyahu's perspective, Trump lifted sanctions on neighbouring Syria — something Israel opposed — and talked up the prospects of securing a nuclear deal with Iran, something the prime minister has always cautioned against.
Fast forward five weeks and the United States has bombed Iran's main nuclear installations, fulfilling a decades-old dream of Netanyahu to convince Washington to bring its full military might to thwart Tehran's atomic ambitions.
The US attack underscores a broader truth that has defined Netanyahu's career: no matter how fraught his relationships with successive presidents, he normally ends up getting what he wants.
For over three decades, Netanyahu has clashed — often spectacularly — with American leaders. He has lectured them, defied them, embarrassed them publicly and privately. And yet, across Democratic and Republican administrations, US military aid has flowed largely uninterrupted to Israel. Washington remains Israel's chief arms supplier and diplomatic shield.
"He probably has concluded that he always gets away with it," said a senior United Nations official in Jerusalem who declined to be named. "It's hard to argue otherwise."
Just one month ago, opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu of destroying Israel's relations with the United States. This weekend's action represents the closest US-Israeli military alignment yet against a common adversary. Withstanding pressure
Netanyahu's belief in his ability to advance his agenda, and withstand American pressure when needed, has deep roots.
Barely a month after becoming prime minister for the first time in 1996, he met President Bill Clinton in Washington and immediately rubbed him up the wrong way.
"Who the f*** does he think he is? Who's the f****** superpower here?" Clinton asked his aides afterwards, according to US diplomat Aaron David Miller, who was present.
But vital US aid to Israel continued to flow — something that would remain a constant over the years.
Netanyahu was voted out of office in a 1999 election and did not return to power until a decade later, by which time Barack Obama, a Democrat like Clinton, was in the White House.
Relations between the two turned openly hostile, initially over Israeli settlement building in occupied territory that Palestinians claim for a future stake — a constant thorn in US-Israeli relations.
Matters deteriorated further as Obama entered negotiations with Iran to curb its nuclear drive — a project that Israel said is aimed at creating atomic bombs and that Tehran has said is for purely civilian purposes.
Netanyahu spoke to Congress in 2015 at the invitation of Republicans to denounce the prospective deal, without informing the White House. "(The accord) doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb," he said.
Obama was widely reported to have been furious, but still, the following year Washington delivered the largest military aid package to Israel in US history — US$38 billion (S$49 billion) over 10 years.
Political analysts say Netanyahu takes US support as a given, confident that backing from evangelical Christians and the small Jewish-American community will guarantee that Israel remains well-armed, however much he antagonises the White House. Convincing Trump
When Hamas militants launched a surprise attack on Israel in October 2023, then-President Joe Biden flew to Israel to show his support, authorising a huge flow of weapons to help with the conflict unleashed in Gaza.
[[nid:719377]]
But relations between Netanyahu, a right-winger, and Biden, a Democrat, deteriorated rapidly, as Washington grew alarmed by the spiralling number of civilian deaths and the burgeoning humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian enclave.
Biden held back on some heavy munitions deliveries and imposed sanctions on a number of violent Israeli settlers, so his defeat at the hands of Trump in last November's presidential election was celebrated by Netanyahu. Finally, he had a Republican in office at a crucial moment for Israel.
However, things did not go smoothly, at least to start with.
Like Biden before him, Trump was unhappy at the protracted conflict in Gaza and then he blindsided Netanyahu during a meeting on April 7, when he revealed that he was launching direct talks with Tehran aimed at finding a diplomatic solution to the protracted nuclear stand-off with Iran.
But while Trump publicly positioned himself as a peacemaker, Netanyahu consistently pushed for military intervention. Although it is unclear if Netanyahu ever got him to say "yes" to Israel's war plans, it was at least not a "no", according to two senior US officials and a senior Israeli source.
As soon as Israel launched its aerial war on Iran in the early hours of June 13, Israel pushed the United States to join in, urging Trump to be on the winning side of history, two Israeli officials said last week.
"Mr President, Finish the job!" read large billboards that have popped up in Tel Aviv.
The sense of relief when the US bombers struck Iran's most protected nuclear sites on Sunday was palpable.
"Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history," Netanyahu said in a brief video address.
"May God bless our unshakeable alliance, our unbreakable faith," he concluded.
[[nid:719373]]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
20 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Operation Midnight Hammer: What we know so far
People at a protest following the US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites in Tehran, Iran, on Sunday, June 22. Arash Khamooshi/The New York Times Demonstrators gathering outside the Wilshire Federal Building on June 22 in Los Angeles, during a rally opposing the US strikes on Iran./AFP A man holding a bucket with burning wood near US Marines standing guard during a protest against the US joining with Israel in attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, at a federal building in Los Angeles. REUTERS/David Swanson A man holding a sign near US Marines standing guard at a protest outside the Westwood Federal Building in Los Angeles on June 22, condemning the US and Israeli strikes on Iran. Bing Guan/AFP Demonstrators gathering outside the Wilshire Federal Building on June 22 in Los Angeles, during a rally opposing the US strikes on Iran./AFP US Marines standing guard at a protest condemning the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, outside the Westwood Federal Building in Los Angeles, on June 22. Bing Guan/AFP
Business Times
43 minutes ago
- Business Times
A war president: Ensuring that the war with Iran doesn't turn into Iraq War II
HE RAN for office bashing members of the Republican Party's neoconservative wing for drawing the US into costly military quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, and vowing not to involve America in 'endless wars' in the Middle East and elsewhere. As President Donald Trump insisted before and after taking office, his America-First foreign policy agenda would preclude embroiling the American people in military crusades aimed at 'regime change' and 'democracy promotion', and would focus instead on pursuing a prudent non-interventionist policy that reflects core US national interests. Those pledges not only helped Trump get elected, but also energised his political base and members of his Maga (Make America Great Again) movement, who were assured that under a president committed to the America-First doctrine there would not be reruns of the Iraq War. No more US military interventions that would turn into slippery slopes to quagmires and disasters whether in Ukraine or, for that matter, in Iran. It is no surprise, therefore, that Trump's attack on three of Iran's nuclear sites and bringing the US military into Israel's war with the Islamic Republic on Sunday (Jun 22) have created a sense of deja vu among the anti-interventionists on the political right as well as the political left. Call it the Iraq Syndrome. But sceptics of US military interventions recall the time in 2003, on the eve of then president George W Bush's decision to attack Iraq, when policymakers and pundits in Washington warned that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that he could use against America and its allies. He did not have those weapons, as many of the anti-war critics had argued in 2003. Now, Trump is insisting that Iran was on its way to develop a nuclear weapon, and that America needed to prevent the Iranians from enriching uranium that would have allowed them to acquire the capability to acquire a nuclear bomb. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up But then Trump's own intelligence agencies had concluded that was not the case, as Tulsi Gabbard, US director of national intelligence, left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran's nuclear programme earlier this year. Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, Gabbard told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not re-authorised the dormant programme even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels, she said. Instead, when deciding to attack Iran, Trump relied on the intelligence assessment of Israel and the conclusion drawn by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that the Islamic Republic was only a few months from acquiring nuclear capability. Did Gabbard or did Netanyahu make the right call here? Lawmakers on Capitol Hill would probably try to answer that question. The military interventionists in 2003, it should be recalled, had promised that a war against Iraq would be short and successful, and that the Iraqi people would receive the American invaders as 'liberators'. Today, there is a sense of victory. 'We have completed our very successful attacks on the three nuclear sites in Iran,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday. He added that a 'full payload' of bombs had been dropped on Fordo, the heavily fortified underground facility where Iran has produced near bomb-grade uranium. 'All planes are safely on their way home,' Trump wrote. Trump assumes that using air power would force Iran to capitulate and give up its nuclear strategy, and that the US would not have to deploy American troops to fight in Iran to press its government to surrender, like it did in Iraq. But air power alone rarely wins wars and if, as expected, Iran responds to the American attacks by targeting US soldiers and civilians, the Trump administration may have no choice but to raise the ante and deploy American troops against Iranian military and political centres of powers. That could mean that, like in 2003, the war in Iran could prove to be longer and costlier than Trump expects. Most opinion polls in 2003 had indicated that the public initially supported the invasion of Iraq, and Bush's declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' was received with applause around the country. But after a year or so when it was becoming clear that the war in Iraq would be long and costly, when American soldiers began to return to the US in body bags, the public support for the war fell and today, most Americans think that it was a costly strategic mistake. And like in 2003 when there was early support, it seems that the public is rallying behind Trump now. A poll by GrayHouse taken before the attack on Sunday found that 83 per cent of Trump voters support Israel's strike, and 73 per cent say that Iran cannot be trusted to honour an agreement. But the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned of 'irreparable damage' if the US joins the war. There are fears that Iran could turn on the Arab states that host American military bases where 40,000 US troops are stationed, and possibly even disrupt the global economy by seeking to close the crucial oil route through the Strait of Hormuz. Which raises the question: How would Trump's supporters respond if the Iranians retaliate against the American strike by attacking US military bases in the Persian Gulf and possibly killing American soldiers, demonstrating all the signs of a slippery slope towards a costlier US military intervention? How would the general American public respond as the economy stagnates, inflation raises its ugly head and petrol prices rise? Would the American people continue to support a US military intervention under these conditions? Indeed, there are some similarities between the march to war with Iraq in Washington in March 2003 and the atmosphere today when pro-war Republican lawmakers, such as Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, and pundits on the Fox News channel are trying to rally the public behind the decision to join Israel in its attack against Iran. Some also predict that the Iranian people would eventually rise up against the ruling ayatollahs. But anti-interventionists or neo-isolationists like journalist Tucker Carlson and podcast host Stephen Bannon are warning that a war with Iran would have all the makings of another Iraq War. 'The first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans,' wrote Carlson last week. 'It could also collapse our economy', he added, as surging oil prices raise petrol prices to the stratosphere and trigger unmanageable inflation, as well as lead to a world war with China and Russia. Bannon said that US involvement in another war in the Middle East would 'tear the country apart', warning that 'we can't have another Iraq'. Similar warnings of 'endless war' are also emanating from members of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, who are exerting pressure on the party's lawmakers not to give Trump the green light to attack Iran. But there are differences between 2003 and 2025. Unlike in the Iraq War, Trump has not called for putting American troops on the ground and occupying Iran. Nor has there been any serious discussion of the US promoting a regime change in Teheran. Administration officials insist that the strike against Iran was a one-off operation and will not lead to a long-drawn war. And while it is true that Trump has pledged not to embroil the US in a war in the Middle East, he has also embraced another proposition and reiterated it again and again before and since entering office – that Iran should not be able to acquire nuclear military capability. One could indeed argue that depriving the Islamic Republic – a source of instability in the Middle East and a threat to US allies in the region, and one that is waging an endless war against the west since 1979 – from the capacity to develop a nuclear bomb is in line with core US national interests. The fact is that the Trump administration was engaged in diplomatic talks with Iranian officials, aimed at pressing Teheran to make a commitment to stop enriching uranium, which would amount to terminating its nuclear military programme. Trump could therefore contend that he had given Iran a chance for peace and Teheran rejected it. His goal now is to reach an agreement with Iran and create the conditions for peace in the Middle East. Is that a realistic proposition? Much would depend on what happens in the coming days and weeks in the Middle East. It seems that the Iranians are not ready to surrender and are likely to take military action against American targets, which could lead to US retaliation. If that happens and is followed by military escalation, Trump may discover – like Bush did in 2003 – that it is easier to get into a war than to get out of it. The president who had promised no more 'endless wars' may end up on a slippery slope being drawn into one.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Greenpeace joins protests against gala Bezos wedding in Venice
A large banner against Amazon founder Jeff Bezos lies on the ground, placed by Greenpeace Italy activists along with others in St. Mark's Square, ahead of the expected wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, in Venice, Italy, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Yara Nardi Local police look at large banner against Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, that lies on the ground, placed by Greenpeace Italy activists along with others in St. Mark's Square, ahead of the expected wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, in Venice, Italy, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Yara Nardi A large banner against Amazon founder Jeff Bezos lies on the ground, placed by Greenpeace Italy activists along with others in St. Mark's Square, ahead of the expected wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, in Venice, Italy, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Yara Nardi VENICE, Italy - Global environmental lobby Greenpeace added its voice on Monday to protests against this week's celebrity wedding in Venice between American tech billionaire Jeff Bezos and journalist Laura Sanchez. The event, expected to attract some 200 guests including U.S. President Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, as well as scores of stars from film, fashion and business, has been dubbed "the wedding of the century". But some locals see the celebration as the latest sign of the brash commodification of a beautiful but fragile city that has long been overrun with tourism while steadily depopulating. Activists from Greenpeace Italy and UK group "Everyone hates Elon" (Musk) unfolded a giant banner in central St Mark's Square with a picture of Bezos laughing and a sign reading: "If you can rent Venice for your wedding you can pay more tax." Local police arrived to talk to activists and check their identification documents, before they rolled up their banner. "The problem is not the wedding, the problem is the system. We think that one big billionaire can't rent a city for his pleasure," Simona Abbate, one of the protesters, told Reuters. Mayor Luigi Brugnaro and regional governor Luca Zaia have defended the wedding, arguing that it will bring an economic windfall to local businesses, including the motor boats and gondolas that operate its myriad canals. Zaia said the celebrations were expected to cost 20-30 million euros ($23-$34 million). Bezos will also make sizable charity donations, including a million euros for Corila, an academic consortium that studies Venice's lagoon ecosystem, Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper and the ANSA news agency reported on Sunday. Earlier this month, anti-Bezos banners were hung from St Mark's bell tower and from the famed Rialto bridge, while locals threatened peaceful blockades against the event, saying Venice needed public services and housing, not VIPs and over-tourism. The exact dates and locations of the glitzy nuptials are being kept confidential, but celebrations are expected to play out over three days, most likely around June 26-28. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
