Israel, Iran, US — a fraught, combustible triangle
Trump lost any credibility to negotiate in this instance because he was negotiating with Iran when Israel attacked. Iran already feels betrayed.
Advertisement
Trump unleashed his bully call to Iran Tuesday:
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Let Netanyahu finish his own war. Maybe Xi Jinping can step in and find a way out. Trump, especially with Pete Hegseth heading the Defense Department, could end up backing us into another protracted war.
Donald J. Bermont
Concord
US has given Iran reasons to be hostile to us
It would seem that Jeff Jacoby, in detailing Iran's crimes against the United States without any examination of the causes of Iranian hostility toward us, would like us to imagine that our history with that nation began in 1979 with the sacking of the US embassy in Tehran. We should look further back to 1953 when the CIA and British intelligence, to protect British oil interests, engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and installed the shah, whose corrupt and repressive regime was supported by the United States over the next 26 years.
Advertisement
What righteous rage would Americans feel if a Muslim nation overthrew our own elected government and supported a police state for decades?
If we continue to imagine that other nations should passively welcome our interference in their affairs, we will continue to make the world a more dangerous place.
Derek Stolp
Sandwich
Nothing 'brilliant' about a war's unfolding
In his column on Israel's war against Iran, Jeff Jacoby writes, 'Israel's Operation Rising Lion has so far unfolded brilliantly.'
There is nothing now, nor has there ever been anything,
brilliant about the death and destruction of war.
We humans consider ourselves to be so very intelligent. Yet we use this gift far too often to dominate and kill one another. Did we not learn anything from the devastation of the 20th century?
We believe ourselves to be smart, but we are not nearly as smart as we think we are and yet, at the same time, too smart for our own good.
Technology used to be more primitive and its destruction limited. Now we use vast amounts of technology and resources to destroy on a global scale. Until we find a better way to settle our differences globally, we risk the end of our civilization.
Advertisement
'Brilliant'? War is shameful.
Rick Cutler
West Barnstable
Uh-oh, our hotheaded president is warmongering
Oh, great (
What could go wrong?
Andy Spiegel
Winchester
Media should remember that both Iran and Israel are under attack
The June 17 front-page story, a report from The New York Times headlined 'As Israel attacks, residents flee,' detailed the damage done in Iran by Israel's missile strikes as well as their impact on civilians there. There was little mention of harm done to civilians in Israel.
For example, there is Eldad Tzahor, my friend and downstairs neighbor for the years he was doing biomedical research at Harvard teaching hospitals. He had been continuing his work on heart regeneration and regenerative medicine at the
This is one personal account. In Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Herzliya, apartment buildings were destroyed. Civilians were injured and killed. Others were left homeless.
Israel has been under siege by Iran, directly and through its proxies, for years. It would behoove the media to be a little more balanced in its reporting.
Andrew Fischer
Brookline
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: U.S. to Examine Social Media Posts of Student Visa Applicants
A Norwegian naval commando hoisted himself onto the deck of a ship during a NATO exercise in March. Beyond projecting military strength and pledging unity, a more pressing theme has emerged for next week's NATO summit: Keep President Trump happy. As leaders prepare to meet for the annual forum starting on Tuesday, U.S. allies have watered down their public support for Ukrainian membership and drafted a policy communiqué as short as five paragraphs to keep the American leader on board. The meeting itself, in The Hague, will open and close in under two days — a timeline designed to keep it devoid of drama. 'No one wants to say no to Trump,' said Mujtaba Rahman, who analyzes Europe for the Eurasia Group. Asked on Wednesday whether the Iran-Israel war would prompt him to skip the meeting, Mr. Trump told reporters that he still planned to attend. In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering. It has already driven an effort by NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, to increase military spending by each of the alliance's 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Mr. Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country's gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Mr. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective. The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of G.D.P. on core defense spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls 'defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.' In the weeks since Mr. Rutte's idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion. And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Mr. Trump's demand soon, if ever. The discussion about Mr. Rutte's proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities. 'It is largely a shell game,' said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.' Image President Trump, at the White House on Wednesday, has demanded an increase in military spending by NATO's members. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times A NATO Numbers Game Mr. Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matthew G. Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not 'driving the timeline' for allies to spend more on defense. 'The threats are driving the timeline,' he said. 'Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody's investing.' Initially, Mr. Trump's ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Mr. Rutte's proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls 'military-adjacent' projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine. In effect, the Trump benchmark 'is both real and not real,' said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy's Institute of International Affairs. 'The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO's getting what it judges it needs,' she said. 'The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the P.R. move for Trump,' she said. 'Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that's all to the good.' Image Ukrainian soldiers last month in the Donetsk region. Credit... Tyler Hicks/The New York Times Counting Aid to Ukraine The proposal may have helped Mr. Rutte balance the president's desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' said Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius. Luxembourg's defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' she said. 'This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.' Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year. And not until recently was it clear — even among some NATO defense ministers — that countries could include a small fraction of their military contributions to the war in Ukraine as part of their defense spending. But the rules for what qualifies are complex and decided at NATO headquarters on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that countries don't double-count what they give to Ukraine as a part of domestic military investment. 'Supporting Ukraine is really an investment into our own security,' said Sweden's defense minister, Pal Jonson. Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia's borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as 'related investments.' Image Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, during a visit to the White House in April. Mr. Rutte is the architect of a plan that would allow for some spending on what the alliance calls 'military-adjacent' projects. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times A Matter of Time There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold. Mr. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO's eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends. 'We don't have time even for seven years,' Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. 'We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.' Britain, for example, has committed to spending only 3 percent by 2034, long after Mr. Trump is scheduled to leave office. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain will reach 2 percent, a decade-old goal, only this year. And the United States itself currently spends about 3.4 percent of its G.D.P. on defense, even though in sheer dollars it accounts for nearly half of NATO spending. The amount that Washington spends just on Europe is a much smaller percentage of the Pentagon's $997 billion budget. Like Mr. Rutte, other world leaders have sought ways to get the most out of their dealings with Mr. Trump and avoid unpredictable problems. At this week's Group of 7 summit, the newly elected prime minister of Canada and host of the event, Mark Carney, deployed a mix of flattery and discipline. Yet the president still disrupted the gathering, departing early to address the Iran-Israel war. Mr. Rutte hopes to avoid such an outcome. 'Trump is making a fake demand for more spending, and they're giving him a fake response,' Mr. Shapiro said. He called the Rutte plan 'clever, because it lets Trump get what he wants and he can brag about it.'
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dow Jones Futures Fall As Trump Mulls Iran Attack; U.S. Markets Shut
Dow Jones futures: U.S. stock markets are closed Thursday as President Trump mulls an Iran attack. Fed chief Jerome Powell is in no rush.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Economics Professor's X-Rated Take On Trump Trade Move Stuns Nicolle Wallace
An economics professor's X-rated analogy for Donald Trump's latest trade maneuver left MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace temporarily at a loss for words on Wednesday. Trump last week said he'll soon write to foreign countries to set unilateral tariff rates. It comes as the U.S. has so far signed just one of the 90 trade deals that was promised within 90 days of Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day,' when he announced plans to hike tariffs on imports from countries worldwide. University of Michigan's Justin Wolfers told Wallace: 'So, Nicolle, I don't know if I'm allowed to say this on television, but sending a letter is to making a trade deal as masturbation is to sex. You're not really involving the other party at all, and you're not really figuring out the ways to exploit the gains from trade.' 'We didn't need this whole mess,' the economist added. Trump 'didn't need to impose high import taxes on Americans. If all he wanted to do was send people letters, we could have done this 90 days ago.' Wallace appeared momentarily stunned at the NSFW analogy, replying: 'Well, you've left me a little speechless.' She then pointed out that Trump's 'brand' is built on making deals, but that's something he's largely failed at with the current lack of potential trade deals for the U.S. Wolfers agreed. 'I don't like to do 'Trumpology' because I don't know what's going on inside the White House,' he said. 'But what I do know is that if you always made the bet that moving forward on any particular economic agenda would require a little bit of hard work, they repeatedly fail to do it.' The 'real world' concern, he concluded, is the ongoing uncertainty that Trump's chaotic trade policies are creating for businesses nationwide. Watch the interview here: Trump Spells Out A Chilling 'Big Difference' He Sees In Himself Since First Term Trump Rages At Reporter Who Refuses To Stick To 'Positive' Questions Economics Professor Utterly Shreds Trump's Trade Chaos In 5 Seconds Flat
