Donald Trump's F-bomb was a ‘brilliant moment'
Broadcaster Lucy Zelic reacts to US President Donald Trump's F-bomb after both Israel and Iran violated the US-brokered ceasefire, calling it a 'brilliant moment'.
'You could see the frustration coming through because he's had a lot to deal with,' Ms Zelic told Sky News host Paul Murray.
'It showed another human element to him.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
2 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
US and Iran to talk next week; Trump threatens Spain for defence miss
President Donald Trump assailed Spain for refusing to agree to new defence spending targets adopted by NATO and suggested the country could be penalised by facing tariffs twice as high from the US. 'You're the only country that is not paying. I don't know what the problem is,' Trump said at the NATO summit at The Hague when asked about Spain balking at paying 5 per cent of their GDP on defence. 'We'll make it up. You know, we're going to do, we're negotiating with Spain on a trade deal. We're going to make them pay twice as much. And I'm actually serious about that,' Trump added. Spain's benchmark stock index extended its losses after Trump's remarks, trading down 1.6 per cent. The index was down about 1.3 per cent prior to the comments. The Stoxx Europe 600 Index, the worst-performing major European benchmark on Wednesday, was down 0.7 per cent. 'We downplay Trump's comments and we emphasise our commitment to NATO,' a spokesperson for the Spanish government said. Spain is part of the European Union, which is racing to clinch a trade deal with Washington before tariffs on nearly all its exports to the US jump to 50per cent on July 9. The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, handles trade matters for the 27-member bloc — individual member states don't negotiate trade deals on their own.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump, Zelenskyy hold talks at NATO summit dominated by defence spending
Donald Trump has said the US may send Ukraine more of the air-defence missiles Kyiv relies on to defend itself from Russian attacks. It comes after the US president met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy for what the Ukranian president called "long and substantive" talks on the sidelines of a NATO summit in The Hague. Speaking at a press conference afterward, Mr Trump said he planned to speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin to get peace negotiations back on track. Asked about the Patriot air-defence missiles, he said they were "very hard to get", but added: "We are going to see if we can make some of them available." He said that it was possible Mr Putin had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine and that he planned to speak to his Russian counterpart "very soon". "Look, Vladimir Putin really has to end that war," he said, describing the conflict as "more difficult [to solve] than other wars". The US president also appeared to make reference to his notorious Oval Office clash with Mr Zelenskyy earlier this year, but indicated the bilateral meeting at the summit had gone better this time. "You know, we had a little rough times sometimes, but he couldn't have been nicer," he said. Mr Zelenskyy posted on X that he had had a "long and substantive" discussion with Mr Trump about the war "covering all the truly important issues". He also said he and Mr Trump discussed the production of drones. "We discussed the protection of our people with the President — first and foremost, the purchase of American air defense systems to shield our cities, our people, churches, and infrastructure," he said. "Ukraine is ready to buy this equipment and support American weapons manufacturers. Europe can help. We also discussed the potential for co-production of drones. We can strengthen each other." Ukrainian and Russian delegations held peace talks in Ankara earlier this year which ended with little progress. It came as NATO countries backed what Mr Trump called a "historic" hike in defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP in member states. The US has been pushing European nations to spend greater sums on their militaries as the Pentagon pivots its defence posture towards the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. The 32 leaders endorsed a final summit statement saying: "Allies commit to invest 5 per cent of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence- and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations." The show of unity vindicated NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's billing of the summit as "transformational," even though it papered over divisions. Mr Trump called the spending boost "something that no one really thought possible. And they said, 'You did it, sir. You did it.' Well, I don't know if I did it, but I think I did." Countries neighbouring Russia are among those embracing greater military build-up, including Poland, the three Baltic states and Nordic countries. NATO's European heavyweights the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands have also committed to spending 5 per cent of their GDP on defence in coming years. In their statement, the leaders said they were united "in the face of profound security threats and challenges, in particular the long-term threat posed by Russia." Finnish President Alexander Stubb said the agreement "is a big win, I think, for both President Trump and I think it's also a big win for Europe". But several NATO members have expressed reservations about the target, with Belgium conceding it was unlikely to reach that threshold and Slovakia saying it reserved the right to determine its own spending. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who has been staunchly opposed to the increased military spending target, labelled the 2035 deadline "unreasonable". "In today's summit, NATO wins and Spain wins something very important for our society, which is security and the welfare state," Mr Sánchez said. That decision earnt Spain a rebuke from the US president, who described its commitment of 2 per cent of GDP on defence as "terrible". "You know, what we're going to do? We're negotiating with Spain on a trade deal. We're going to make them pay twice as much." Reuters/AP/AFP
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Will Putin help Iran rebuild its nuclear program?
Sam Hawley: One of Iran's closest allies is Russia. So why did Vladimir Putin decide not to come to Tehran's aid and provide military support as Israel, and then America, worked to destroy its nuclear program? Today, Middle East expert Anna Borshevskaya from the Washington Institute on what the war means for Moscow and whether Putin might help Iran now to rebuild its nuclear capability. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Anna, it's been an incredible few weeks with Donald Trump, of course, always there. His latest spray at Israel and Iran was, well, quite something. Anna Borshchevskaya: Yes, it was. Yes, it was. It's definitely a change from what we're used to hearing from American presidents. Donald Trump, US President: You know what, we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f*** they're doing. Do you understand that? Sam Hawley: Yes, that's right. All right. Well, the ceasefire, of course, is in place, although everything can change very quickly. And we have these reports of preliminary classified findings out of the US that the Iranian nuclear program has been set back only by a few months. And I want to talk to you about that in just a moment. But of course, we're here to talk about Russia, because that is your expertise. When Israel first began its strikes on Iran, there was immediate concern, of course, that there could be a major escalation. And I think it's fair to say that many people's minds drifted to what Russia might do. Anna Borshchevskaya: Yes, there were very good reasons to think about what Russia might do, because in the last several years, but really under all of Putin's presidency, Russia had moved closer to Iran. Putin, by and large, attempted to play this balancing act across the Middle East of building good ties with everyone in the region, including, of course, Israel. But in reality, he empowered Iran and its proxies along with, until last December, the Assad regime in Syria. In other words, Putin, on the one hand, tried to play this balancing act of being able to have good relations with everyone. But in reality, he was closer with anti-American forces in the region. Sam Hawley: And important to remember, as we discuss this, is that Russia is a nuclear state, of course. Anna Borshchevskaya: Of course, absolutely it sure is. And Putin never fails to remind us that Russia is a nuclear state. The Kremlin regularly engages in nuclear sabre rattling to scare the West into concessions on Ukraine, most recently, but also on other issues. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, I know Russia didn't come, of course, to Iran's aid during this conflict, unlike North Korea has done for Vladimir Putin in the war in Ukraine. And of course, as Iran has done by providing short-range missiles and drones to Russia. So we're going to come to why that is in a moment. But it's really good just to step back and understand the history of this relationship between Iran and Russia, because they have a really complicated past, don't they? Anna Borshchevskaya: Absolutely. They do have a very complicated past. It is a history that spans over 500 years, most of it coloured by distrust. Historically, it is Iran, remember, that lost wars to Russia, not the other way around. The fact of the matter is, probably as early as the 1980s or late 1980s, the Soviet Union and Iran did begin to take steps towards improving relations. And those efforts continued in the 1990s. It was Russia that began constructing Iran's nuclear facilities, nuclear programs, the Bushehr reactor. Again, as I said earlier, Putin wanted to build good ties with all actors in the Middle East, but he did lean closer to anti-American forces. And it was Syria that really brought the Russia-Iran relationship to unprecedented heights. Remember, Russia intervened militarily in Syria in late 2015. And of course, in January of this year, the two countries, Russia and Iran, that is, signed a strategic partnership agreement. So Russia and Iran continued getting closer and closer, which brings us to the present moment. And as you said, Russia did not come to Iran's rescue. Sam Hawley: Yeah, absolutely. So the war in Ukraine has provided a strategic reason for Russia and Iran to work more closely together. Anna Borshchevskaya: That's right. The war in Ukraine certainly provided more reasons for Russia and Iran to work more closely together. Russia found itself isolated by the West, as did Iran. But also, even before the invasion of Ukraine, these countries shared a larger geostrategic vision for the world. In other words, they both resented American leadership. They wanted to see a different world order, and they wanted to see what they often call a quote-unquote multipolar world. And certainly they wanted to reduce American influence specifically in the Middle East. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Anna, given this closer alliance that we've discussed, let's look at what role Russia could have played in this war when Israel began its strikes on Iran. Vladimir Putin thought initially he could be a peacemaker. Tell me about that. Anna Borshchevskaya: Yeah, and this is Putin's favourite role to play in the Middle East. And this goes back to what I said earlier. If you see how he tried to position himself as somebody that can talk to all sides, typically conflicting sides in the Middle East, who has somebody who has good relations with everyone, you can see why somebody in that position would want to cast themselves as a mediator. But really, it's a way for Putin to position Russia as an indispensable actor, somebody without whom you cannot solve major world events. News report: Russian President Vladimir Putin held a 50-minute phone call with the US President Donald Trump, the Kremlin condemning Israel's attacks, both sides saying it's not too late for Iran to strike a deal. Donald Trump, US President: As you know, Vladimir called me up. He said, can I help you with Iran? I said, no, I don't need help with Iran. I need help with you. Anna Borshchevskaya: If the West and if Israel and Iran, along with Europe and the US, were to accept Russia as a mediator, it would take Russia out of this perceived pariah status in the West and again would cast Russia as important. Sam Hawley: So he wanted to be a peacemaker, which of course did not happen. But given this relationship with Iran, why didn't Putin render any sort of assistance whatsoever to the regime? Anna Borshchevskaya: Well, I think there's several reasons. And one thing I said very early on, if you read the strategic partnership agreement between Russia and Iran that I mentioned earlier that the two countries signed in January, it doesn't actually obligate Russia to come to Iran's aid. There is no clause that obligates them to come to defence of each other. It's not like the NATO charter. But also, Russia would expect the country to formally ask for assistance. This is a very different view of what a strategic partnership is. It's a far more limited view. And I think also, certainly given how bogged down Putin is in Ukraine, he had little to spare. He frankly would have, I think in the beginning of this conflict, probably expected it to end fairly quickly. His biggest concern would be Iran turning pro-Western. But if there were limited strikes against Iran that weakened the regime a little bit, that would not have gone contrary to his interests because he sees Russia at the top of a power pyramid and he wants Russia to be powerful than others. That is how he sees all relationships. Lastly, we saw a very interesting thing going on with oil prices. There was a spike very quickly in oil prices, but then it went down. But certainly the potential for oil prices rising also would have very much benefited Putin's war effort in Ukraine, because that is one important way that how he's able to fund his war. I do think, though, I will say this, Iran turning pro-Western is a big concern for Russia. And that is why I did wonder if potentially if things were to change, again, the situation has been moving very quickly, if Russia could do maybe a little bit more to help Iran. But also given Russia's ties with all other actors in the region, with the Gulf states and with Israel, Putin wanted to take a very cautious approach here. Sam Hawley: But what you're saying is if Vladimir Putin sensed perhaps that the Iranian regime was about to fall, that perhaps he would change his decision on this and render support. Anna Borshchevskaya: Yeah, it is something that I wondered. But, you know, there's several questions to ask here also. What could realistically Russia offer? And two, with the United States entering the conflict, that's a whole different ballgame. Sam Hawley: Yeah. All right, well, let's then, Anna, unpack what the consequences of this Israel-Iran conflict could be for Russia and what sort of relationship it might now have with Iran. There are negatives in all of this, aren't there, for Vladimir Putin? Not least of which it has exposed Moscow's limitations and the fact that it's not a particularly reliable ally. Anna Borshchevskaya: Yeah, absolutely. If there is no regime collapse in Iran, certainly it's hard to see how this regime comes out strong. In other words, we're going to more likely see a significantly weakened regime in Tehran. And that does hurt Russia's overall strategic position in this region, because Putin did position himself as somebody who supported these forces. And again, Putin doesn't understand the term ally the same way as we do. But the fact that he did not come to Iran's rescue does quite a bit of damage to Russia's reputation as a reliable partner. But it does hurt Russia's strategic position in the region. I would say far more so, I would say, than the fall of the Assad regime in last December. Sam Hawley: Yeah, on the flip side, of course, of this, as you've mentioned, there are some positives for Russia because attention has well and truly drifted away from his own conflict, Vladimir Putin's conflict in Ukraine, which has really intensified over the last few weeks. Anna Borshchevskaya: That's absolutely right. And especially it intensified specifically on June 13, when Israel began its campaign against the Iranian nuclear facilities. World distraction from Ukraine is absolutely still very much a benefit to Russia. And that is a chief priority for Putin. Sam Hawley: And what about the fact that Israel and the US acted alone? They did not go through the normal international diplomatic channels, if you like. Will Russia exploit that? Anna Borshchevskaya: Well, they've already begun exploiting that. There was no shortage of rhetoric coming out condemning the perceived unilateralism and perceived American cynicism and hypocrisy of America as a hypocrite country, as America supposedly preaching about liberal values but breaking them. And certainly, I think we can expect the Kremlin to continue to attempt to capitalise on theme with countries outside the liberal free world. Sam Hawley: So, Anna, what now for this relationship? As we said, the latest, and they are preliminary findings from US intelligence, suggests that Iran's nuclear program has only been set back by a few months. Could Russia now help Iran on that front, help to rebuild its capacity, do you think? Anna Borshchevskaya: I wouldn't, you know, I wouldn't rule it out. Remember again that Russia did build the Bushehr reactor in Iran in the first place. Russia was a key supporter of the Iranian nuclear program and they were champions of claiming that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful. Provision of high technology goods such as nuclear reactors is Russia's competitive advantage. So I think, again, the story is not over and Russia's relationship with Iran is not broken. Sam Hawley: So how interested then is Russia in keeping this really quite tight alliance continuing on? Anna Borshchevskaya: I think they would want to continue this alliance because, again, Russia has empowered Iran and its proxies across the region with the aim of weakening American influence in this region. So if that regime collapses, that is a far bigger concern for them than Iran turning nuclear. Historically, Russia simply never worried about the Iranian nuclear program the same way that the West or Israel did. But they did worry about Iran turning pro-Western. And historically, they had good reasons to do so, because remember that prior to the 1979 revolution, Iran was pro-Western. And Russians do understand history. So they also know that the Iranian people are far more pro-Western than the Iranian regime. Iran turning pro-Western would be a big strategic loss for Russia. Sam Hawley: Anna Borshevskaya is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, an American think tank. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
