Trump And Netanyahu On A Collision Course? Israel Bombs Syria, Setback To US' Normalization Bid
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Israel, Ukraine announce 'dialogue' on countering Iran
KYIV: Israel and Ukraine said Wednesday they had agreed to start talks on countering the "threat" posed by Iran, in a sign of deepening ties between the two countries. Both see Iran, a close ally of Russia, as a malign actor on the world stage. Israel has long accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, an allegation it denies, while Ukraine is regularly attacked from Russia by Iranian-designed drones. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiga described Iran as an "existential threat" to global security during a joint press conference in Kyiv with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar -- the most senior Israeli official to visit Ukraine since 2023. "Our countries face common security challenges. Today we have decided to launch a separate dialogue on the Iranian threat," Sybiga said. Saar said any effort to curb Tehran's access to weapons and technology contributed to the security of Europe and Ukraine. "I thank President (Volodymyr) Zelensky and the Ukrainian government for its position that Iran must not have nuclear weapons," he said. Ukraine has expressed frustration at Israel's neutral stance on the Russian invasion, but the two share common interests. Kyiv has long accused Tehran of supplying military hardware to Moscow. Last month, Israel launched a surprise bombing campaign against Iran with the stated aim of destroying military and nuclear sites, an action that Kyiv supported.
The Hindu
41 minutes ago
- The Hindu
PM 'shows weakness' by not responding to Trump's repeated claims on India-Pakistan conflict: Congress chief
After U.S. President Donald Trump repeated his claim — for the 25th time, according to the Congress — that he had stopped the recent conflict between India and Pakistan, party leaders questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi's continued 'silence' on the issue. Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, said there was 'something fishy' about Mr. Modi's failure to respond even once to Mr. Trump's repeated claim of facilitating a ceasefire. Party president Mallikarjun Kharge said the PM 'shows weakness' by staying silent. On Tuesday, the U.S. President said once again that he had stopped the recent conflict which 'could end up in a nuclear war', adding that five planes had been shot down during the war. 'PM should respond firmly' 'Trump keeps saying that he facilitated a ceasefire, but Narendra Modi is silent, not responding. Does Narendra Modi want to be subservient to Trump? The country is the most important, which is why we supported the government,' Mr. Kharge told reporters. 'In such a situation, when Trump repeatedly states that he brought about the ceasefire and insults India, the Prime Minister should respond firmly. This, in some way, shows weakness.' Mr. Gandhi said that the PM could not respond as 'the whole world knows' the truth of the situation. 'This is not just about ceasefire there are big problems that we want to discuss. There are problems related to defence, defence industry, Operation Sindoor. The situation is not good and the whole world knows. Those who call themselves patriots have run away. The Prime Minister is not able to give one statement,' Mr. Gandhi told journalists at the Parliament House complex. 'Something fishy' 'Trump has said 25 times that 'I got the ceasefire done'. Who is Trump to get a ceasefire done? It is not his job. But the Prime Minister has not given a reply even once. That is the truth, he cannot hide,' the Congress leader said, adding that the Modi government has 'destroyed our foreign policy, no one supported us'. The government has agreed to hold a Parliamentary discussion on Operation Sindoor when the Prime Minister returns from his trip out of the country, Mr. Gandhi said. 'On the one hand you [government] say Operation Sindoor is ongoing and on the other hand you say that victory has been achieved. Either victory has been achieved or Sindoor is ongoing. Trump is saying I halted Sindoor, he has said it 25 times. So, 'kuch na kuch toh daal mein kala hai na' (something is fishy),' he added.
Economic Times
44 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump has his biggest target in crosshairs. What can happen
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The political temperature in Washington has surged again, this time over a storm of accusations from President Donald Trump , targeting former President Barack Obama . During a press appearance alongside Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Trump accused Obama of orchestrating a 'coup' in 2016 by politicising intelligence regarding Russian election interference . The spark for this latest escalation: a set of newly declassified documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard last week, which Trump claims are proof of treason. He is now demanding that the Department of Justice (DOJ) open a criminal unprecedented moment raises a pressing question: can a former US president actually face prosecution for actions taken while in office? And what are the legal and political implications of such a move?At the heart of the controversy are intelligence documents recently declassified by Tulsi Gabbard, who now heads the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Gabbard's disclosures allege that Obama-era officials -- specifically James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, Susan Rice, and Andrew McCabe --deliberately distorted or suppressed intelligence to frame a narrative of Russian election interference that would damage argued that this manipulation of intelligence was not only unethical but possibly criminal, referring to it as a 'treasonous conspiracy". According to her statements, certain intelligence reports that cleared the Trump campaign of collusion were deliberately downplayed or ignored, while narratives emphasising Russian interference were selectively elevated. Importantly, the materials do not show that votes were altered or that Obama directly interfered in vote counts. Rather, they appear to suggest a pattern of politically motivated intelligence shaping which is serious, but far from the clear-cut criminal behaviour that would normally prompt a DOJ on the released documents, Trump quickly amplified the narrative. He accused Obama of treason and insisted that the DOJ open an investigation. Trump even went so far as to post an AI-generated video showing the FBI arresting Obama in the Oval Office, a move that was widely condemned as inflammatory and reckless. While Obama's office rarely responds to Trump's ongoing attacks, the former president issued a statement calling the accusations 'bizarre,' 'ridiculous,' and 'a weak attempt at distraction". The statement emphasised the unprecedented nature of the accusation and suggested it was designed to distract from Trump's own mounting legal and political Trump's message resonated with his base. Conservative media and MAGA-aligned lawmakers echoed his call for accountability, with several suggesting that the disclosures represent the biggest scandal in American the political firestorm, the likelihood that Obama will face criminal prosecution remains extremely slim. The evidence currently available may not establish that Obama committed a prosecutable offence. The documents suggest internal disagreements and potentially politicised decision-making, but not necessarily criminal behaviour. Under US law, proving treason or criminal conspiracy requires evidence of intent, coordination and direct action to break the there is the matter of precedent and prosecutorial norms. No former US president has ever been prosecuted for actions taken while in office unless there was incontrovertible proof of criminal conduct. Even in high-profile cases like Watergate, those involved were either pardoned or avoided criminal charges through plea deals and immunity arrangements. While it is possible that the DOJ may quietly review the Gabbard disclosures, the standard for launching a formal criminal case against a former president is extraordinarily high. Without compelling evidence, it's unlikely that Attorney General Merrick Garland would take the risk of igniting a constitutional has promised more disclosures in the coming weeks. If new documents emerge that contain stronger evidence of deliberate falsification or political manipulation, especially if Obama is directly implicated, then the DOJ could face renewed pressure to the allegations have already become a powerful tool for Trump and his allies, who are using the narrative to galvanise support and frame the 2016 Russia investigation as a calculated attack. For Democrats, however, the accusations are viewed largely as a diversion tactic, aimed at deflecting attention from Trump's own troubles. Within the intelligence community, Gabbard's unilateral declassification has raised alarm, with critics arguing that it undermines institutional credibility and could damage relationships with allied intelligence services. These concerns have been echoed by figures such as Senator Mark Warner, who warned that such politicisation erodes the foundational trust that intelligence-sharing depends the legal pathway seems narrow, the political implications are far-reaching. Trump and his allies have seized on the moment to reframe the Russia investigation as a political weapon wielded by Obama to undermine the peaceful transfer of power. In their view, the disclosures prove that the 2016 Russia investigation was a 'hoax' built on fabricated intelligence and partisan motives. This can help Trump regain support of many of those among MAGA who have been disppointed by the Trump adminsitration's handling of Epstein role in all of this cannot be overstated. Once a Democratic congresswoman known for her anti-establishment stance, she has become a central figure in reshaping how intelligence is handled in the executive branch. Critics say she is politicising national security, while supporters argue she is exposing long-standing corruption.
