NHK Analysis: Trump scores deals on Mideast tour, but no ceasefires
US President Donald Trump is wrapping up a four-day visit to the Middle East on Friday, his first major overseas trip since he returned to the White House in January. The US leader has touted his tour's economic wins, but did he leave diplomatic opportunities on the table?
NHK World's Jordan Gravelle reports on Trump's visit from Abu Dhabi:
"This was clearly a chance for Trump to score an economic win after the turmoil over his tariff threats.
He needed a lay-up, and that's what he got. And that's not surprising.
"Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE are very wealthy, they already have strong ties with Washington. They also have a lot to gain by investing big in the US, in terms of technology as well as international credibility. Saudi Arabia, in particular, scored a 142-billion dollar arms deal to modernize its military.
"For Trump, he gets to show off his ability to make these kinds of deals. That's pretty important since he upended his country's trade relations with much of the world not too long ago. That's what the White House has been promoting on this tour.
"On the diplomatic front, regarding ongoing conflicts, the biggest moment was probably Trump's meeting with the interim Syrian leader in Riyadh, and announcing he'll end US sanctions on that country. But the elephant in the room during all these meetings was Israel's conflict in Gaza. It's very close to home for the Gulf states.
"Qatar has hosted peace talks between Israel and Hamas. During his tour, we heard Trump reiterate that he wants to bring an end to the fighting. Before he arrived in the Middle East, Hamas released an American-Israeli hostage, which Trump said could be the first step toward peace. But we also know Israel is getting ready to ramp up its military operations in Gaza again over the coming days. So, no real progress, despite reports of the humanitarian situation getting worse and worse for Palestinians.
"The other notable thing happening during this tour is the Ukraine-Russia peace efforts in Turkey. Zelenskyy had called on both Trump and Putin to attend. Istanbul is only about a 5-hour flight away from here, and Trump's even teased, at points, that he could still go. He could be testing the waters to see if Putin would be willing to join the talks if all three leaders are present.
"That could be why we just heard from a top US official that the only chance for a breakthrough between Kyiv and Moscow is with Trump's direct participation. He's sort of exerting his influence through his absence. If the talks fail, it's because Trump wasn't there, but if Putin changes his mind, he's close enough to swoop in.
We just have to see who blinks first."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
an hour ago
- NHK
White House: Trump receptive to correspondence with North Korean leader Kim
A White House spokesperson says US President Donald Trump "remains receptive" to correspondence with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made the remark when she was questioned about a report published by NK News, a news website that focuses on North Korea. The report said North Korean diplomats at Pyongyang's UN mission in New York had refused to accept a letter from Trump that was addressed to Kim. In response to a question from the media, Leavitt said, "The president remains receptive to correspondence with Kim Jong Un." She added that Trump would "like to see the progress that was made" at the summit in Singapore in 2018 during his first term. She also said, "As for specific correspondence, I'll leave that to the president to answer." This comes as Trump is believed to be considering the possibility of holding a summit with the North Korean leader. Trump met with Kim three times during his first term. Some observers say holding a meeting will be more difficult now, as Pyongyang has been strengthening its ties with Moscow and advancing its nuclear and missile development programs.
NHK
14 hours ago
- NHK
Israel, US react sharply to sanctions against Israeli ministers by 5 nations
Israel has reacted sharply to sanctions imposed on two of its ministers by the governments of five nations. The United States has also criticized the move. Britain, Canada, Norway, Australia and New Zealand on Tuesday announced sanctions targeting Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, including a freeze on their assets and travel bans. In a joint statement, the five countries accused the ministers of "inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank." They also said that the measures "focus on the West Bank, but of course this cannot be seen in isolation from the catastrophe in Gaza." Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar on the same day rejected the decision, calling it "outrageous," and adding that the Israeli government would hold a meeting next week to decide on its response to the measures. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the five-nation's move on social media, saying the measures do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire. Meanwhile, media in Gaza reported on Wednesday that more than 20 people were killed as Israeli forces opened fire near a US-backed aid distribution center in the enclave. The United Nations has harshly criticized a series of attacks near food distribution sites, saying that Israel must "allow the UN safe and unhindered access to bring in aid and distribute it safely."
Japan Times
18 hours ago
- Japan Times
Could U.S. and Israel destroy Iran's nuke program? Yep, here's how.
Despite hopeful signals from U.S. President Donald Trump's administration about a potential nuclear deal with Iran, the fundamentals don't look good. Trump recently said, and rightly so, that the U.S. would not allow Tehran any form of uranium enrichment capability (although top aides have sent mixed signals). Iran, conversely, makes the unconvincing claim that it would use enrichment capacity not to build an atomic weapon, but to feed nuclear power plants. Israel, meanwhile, is sending blatant signals that it is ready and enthusiastic to launch strikes at Tehran's nuclear facilities now, while Iranian air defenses are still weakened after two years of sporadic conflict. Trump is telling the Israelis to cool their jets (literally) while he tries to forge a peaceful arrangement. But he is equally clear that if talks collapse, the next step may well be joint U.S.-Israeli strikes. You can bet that serious planning for strikes is in progress at the Pentagon, U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, and Israeli Defense Forces HQ. General plans for such an assault, of course, have been in existence for decades and are frequently updated — most recently after the significant Israeli airstrikes months ago. What would joint Israeli-U.S. assaults on Iran's nuclear facilities look like? How effective would they be? In other words, what is the risk-benefit calculus for such an audacious and aggressive move? The most obvious and necessary element of such an operation would come from the air: a combination of cruise missiles, drones and manned aircraft. But before any bombs are dropped over Iranian nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordow, there would be significant military preparation. First would be a comprehensive offensive cyberwar campaign, probably coinciding with an onslaught of cruise missiles and drones attacking Tehran's remaining Russian-supplied S-300 and S-200 air-defense stations and Iranian surface-to-air systems like the Bavar 373 or Khordad 15. The cyber-offensive would best be set off inside Tehran's military electric grid: The Israelis probably have that ability — essentially cyber-boots on the ground. The Israelis would probably also use some level of special forces. The strike they conducted on Iranian missile production facilities in Syria in 2024, Operation Many Ways, is instructive in that they used Shaldag Unit commandos dropped in by helicopters. For the IDF and Mossad (Israel's intelligence agency) to get real ground power in place would require transporting commandos significant distances. One option would be to use an Israeli naval flotilla to get the special forces close enough for helicopter movements. The combination of cruise missiles and drone attacks would be where U.S. combat power would come into play — particularly with long range Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile volleys from Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers. U.S. submarines could also contribute, although their missile inventories are far below those of the surface ships. The cruise missiles would be focused on destroying Iran's air-defense batteries, electric grid, early warning radars and strategic communications nodes. Simultaneously, a wave of drones would be sent to take out the Iranian air force before it could get into the skies. Tehran's planes are mostly old by modern combat standards, including ancient U.S.-made F4 and F14 fighters (think Tom Cruise in Top Gun in the 1980s) and have significant maintenance problems. They would be easy prey in the air, but knocking them out while they are still parked on the ground — much like the Ukrainians did to Russia's strategic bombers last week — would further de-risk the battlefield. This phase would use a combination of Israeli and American aircraft. The most sophisticated planes flown by both air forces are the fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which could operate from land bases in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar and be refueled in the air by KC-135 and KC-46 super tankers. The American aircraft could also come from the sea — it would be best to have at least two aircraft carriers, with 80 combat aircraft each. (Currently there is only one carrier strike group in the region, but another could be there in less than two weeks.) Israel's older F-18s and F-16s, alongside carrier-based U.S. F/A-18 Hornets, could be used to mop up any remaining Iranian aircraft after the air defenses were thoroughly denuded. Then would come the main event: heavy air strikes, probably led by U.S. B-2 Spirit strategic bombers carrying 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators, aka "bunker busters.' The U.S. recently positioned up to eight of the stealth bombers at striking positions on the island of Diego Garcia, southeast of Iran in the Indian Ocean. They were replaced last month by a fleet of venerable B-52s, but could return within a matter of hours. Iran's best defense isn't missiles or planes, however — it is that much of the uranium-enrichment program is buried deep underground and hardened against bombing. Still, I wouldn't want to be in the central centrifuge rooms when the B-2s arrive. Conservative estimates of battle damage indicate the program would be knocked back by at least a year. Unfortunately, the Iranians likely have important sites we don't know about — the "known unknowns' my old boss Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld talked about. Iran is a huge country, almost two and a half times the size of Texas, much of it mountainous and difficult to fully surveil from space. This would be a challenging mission indeed. Iran would respond vigorously to a massive strike. Counterattacks would be both direct and asymmetrical and would almost certainly include another volley of ballistic missiles at Israel (far larger than the ineffective attack last year), alongside strikes from what's left of Hezbollah's inventory in Syria. Bombings at U.S. and Israeli embassies and commercial facilities worldwide would be likely and cyberattacks a certainty. Tehran might close the Strait of Hormuz with mines, small craft and short-range surface-to-surface missiles. This would shut down 35% of the world's oil and gas shipments and it would take perhaps months for the U.S. and allies to reopen it. Tehran might also strike at Saudi or UAE offshore oil and gas facilities or even attack the Saudis' main energy facilities on land. If Tehran goes this far, it would widen the war to potentially include strikes on Iranian naval facilities in the Indian Ocean, major military bases inland or other command-and-control sites. Re-opening the Strait of Hormuz would likely pull in America's European and Gulf allies. But having lost control of its decimated proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis — Iran has few moves left on the chessboard. It's said that Iran's progenitor, the Persian Empire, was one of the first societies to play the game of chess. If Tehran blows this chance to negotiate with the U.S., it is headed to a very dark endgame indeed. James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group.
