Trump plays deft hand with Iran-Israel ceasefire but doubts remain
Israel, Iran and Trump himself all declared victory after 12 days of conflict that culminated Saturday in the United States bombing Iran's key nuclear sites.
After facing criticism -- even within his base -- for breaking his campaign promises against military intervention abroad, Trump was able to show a quick way out, and to portray himself, despite the bombing, as a peacemaker.
"I don't think the Israeli government was able to sustain a long-term war, but I think the main factor here was President Trump. He did not want to see a new war in the region break out under his watch," said Will Todman, a senior fellow at the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"That is what changed the calculation for Israel and for Iran as well."
Trump startled even close aides and allies by announcing the ceasefire on social media late Monday -- the middle of the night in the Middle East -- just after Iran fired missiles at a US base in Qatar, in what appeared to be a choreographed response as the rockets were easily shot down.
Trump chose not to retaliate against Iran and on Tuesday, returned to his electronic bully pulpit to urge Israel to abort new attacks on Iran.
Iran needed an off-ramp as it suffered its worst assault since the 1980-88 war with Iraq. Trump also appeared to offer incentives to sanctions-bound Iran by suggesting an easing of US pressure on China to stop buying Iranian oil.
Israel's military, while proving itself to be the region's strongest, has been stretched by campaigns in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon, and with Iranian strikes this month, the Israeli population endured the most prolonged, deadly air attacks seen in decades.
After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Trump's intervention, the president's warning Tuesday likely also showed him the limits to US support, Todman said.
What was achieved?
Trump hailed his intervention as a monumental success, although critics have long warned that an attack could make Iran rush, more clandestinely, to a nuclear bomb.
While Trump claimed Iran's nuclear program was "obliterated," a classified report found that the US bombing did not destroy the core parts of the three nuclear sites, according to CNN and The New York Times.
Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said it's too early to know if the ceasefire would hold, either.
He said that Gulf Arab powers, led by well-connected Qatar, did the hard work of quiet diplomacy as they sought a return to calm in their region.
"Trump vocally used his troll power to try to restrain the actions of Israel and Iran, but that matters less compared with the role that these countries continuously play," Katulis said of Gulf Arab states.
Katulis, who worked on the Middle East for former president Bill Clinton, said the Trump administration's tactical military operations, combined with "a heavy dose of strategic communications" confused Americans and global actors alike "about what it is we're actually trying to get done."
Showing heft at home
One area where Trump's diplomacy had clear -- if short-term -- benefits was at home.
A prolonged US military campaign "had the potential to really fracture President Trump's own base of support," said Jonathan Panikoff, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.
But now, "my guess is the majority of his MAGA and other Republican base will stay relatively unified, even if they were unthrilled in some quarters," he said.
While traditional hawks of Trump's Republican Party largely cheered the Iran strikes, they were widely but not universally denounced by rival Democrats.
Annelle Sheline, who resigned from the State Department to protest policies under former president Joe Biden and is now at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said it was critical for Trump to enforce the ceasefire.
She noted Israel has bombed Lebanon and Gaza during truces, saying Netanyahu believed he enjoyed "America's unconditional support."
"Trump demonstrated that he can rein in Israel when he chooses to do so. Now he must do the same to insist on a ceasefire in Gaza," she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
41 minutes ago
- Euronews
Oil prices rise despite fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel
Investors kept an eye on the Middle East on Wednesday as a fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel appeared to hold after initial shakiness. Both sides claimed victory; Iran's president said Israel had suffered a 'historic punishment', while Israel's prime minister argued the offensive had removed 'the Iranian nuclear threat'. A new US intelligence report nonetheless found that Tehran's nuclear programme had only been set back by a few months by US strikes. Washington denied the findings of the leaked report. Early in Europe, Brent crude had risen around 1.15% to $67.91 a barrel, while WTI was 1.21% higher at $65.15. The prices suggest the market has still not fully calmed after the conflict in the Middle East, with investors continuing to monitor the shaky ceasefire. US President Trump rebuked both countries for violating the announced ceasefire on Tuesday. 'Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I've never seen before, the biggest load that we've seen,' he said. On his social media platform, Truth Social, he wrote: 'Israel, do not drop those bombs. If you do, it is a major violation. Bring your pilots home, now!' Trump claimed that neither Iran nor Israel "know what the f*** they're doing". Stocks, meanwhile, rose modestly on Wednesday. Dow Jones futures rose 0.06% to 43,452.00, while S&P 500 futures gained 0.05% to 6,149.25. In Asian trading, the Shanghai Composite index climbed 0.44% to 3,435.60, the Nikkei 225 rose 0.31% to 38,910.93, Hong Kong's Hang Seng jumped 0.78% to 24,364.79, while South Korea's Kospi was almost flat, rising 0.01% to 3,104.20. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 notched up 0.09% to 8,563.20. The US Dollar Index was up 0.13% at 97.98 although the currency has still failed to recover from losses seen earlier this year. The euro rose less than 1% against the dollar while the Japanese Yen dropped around 0.12% against its US safe-haven alternative. 'The situation in the Middle East is fluid. While the downside risks have subsided, the situation can change quickly and the balance of risks remains weighted toward higher oil prices,' said Ryan Sweet, Chief US Economist at Oxford Economics, on Tuesday.
AFP
an hour ago
- AFP
Video shows Malaysia factory fire, not Iranian attack on Israel's air defence system
"The Israeli air defence system in Tel Aviv was destroyed by Iranian missiles," reads Thai-language text on a TikTok video published on June 20, 2025. The video shows people watching a fire behind a building in the distance before an explosion appears to launch a fireball into the air. It surfaced a day after a hospital in southern Israel and buildings in the central towns of Ramat Gan and Holon, close to coastal hub Tel Aviv, were struck after a barrage of Iranian missiles (archived link). Iran said the main target of the attack in Israel's south was a military and intelligence base, not the hospital (archived link). Iran had been firing daily missile barrages at Israel since a wide-ranging Israeli attack on the Islamic republic's nuclear installations and military bases on June 13 triggered the war. A US-proposed ceasefire announced on June 24 appeared to be holding, bringing an end to the 12-day conflict which has killed more than 600 people in Iran and 28 people in Israel (archived link). Image Screenshot of the false TikTok post captured on June 23, 2025, with a red X added by AFP The same footage was also viewed millions of times in similar X posts. But the video does not show an air defence system destroyed by Iran. Unrelated video A reverse image search on Google using keyframes from the falsely shared video led to the same footage posted on TikTok on April 25, weeks before the start of the Iran-Israel war (archived link). The clip was posted by the user "hamidhudson937", whose handle can be seen in the top-left corner of the falsely shared video. The video used in the false posts appears to be a slowed down version of the TikTok clip, and onlookers can be more clearly heard saying in Malay: "The gas cylinder is flying." Image Screenshot comparison of the falsely shared video (left) and the TikTok video posted in April (right) Subsequent keyword searches on Google led to similar footage of the blaze posted on TikTok on April 24 with the Malay-language caption, "A factory fire in Senai's Desa Idaman" (archived link). AFP geolocated the factory to an industrial town in southern Malaysia (archived link). Image Screenshot comparison of the falsely shared video (left) and Google Street View imagery (right), with corresponding elements highlighted by AFP Local media outlets Buletin TV3 and The Sun reported that three men were injured in the fire (archived here and here). AFP has previously debunked other false claims related to the Iran-Israel war.
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Will Trump really pull US troops out of Europe?
History may repeat itself, but not always with the same impact. In 2012, when then-US defence secretary Leon Panetta announced the withdrawal of two combat brigades - roughly 8,000 troops - from Europe in order to reduce military spending, western European governments shrugged it off. When US president Donald Trump mused this year about withdrawing US forces from Europe, it sent barely concealed shockwaves through European chancelleries. The difference: Panetta at the time said America's security commitments to Europe and to NATO were "unwavering". By contrast, Trump has threatened not to protect NATO members that spend too little on defence. And his own vice president and defence secretary made disparaging comments about European allies in a now-infamous group chat earlier this year, with defence chief Pete Hegseth expressing his 'loathing of European free-loading', according to the Atlantic magazine. Get the difference? On the eve of the NATO summit in The Hague this week, the chatter about the US military leaving Europe for good has somewhat subsided. Yet, European diplomats do fear an announcement by Trump after the summit. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a Euronews request for comment. Reason enough to hear from top US military experts whether they think a massive US troop withdrawal is on the cards and what the impact of such a move would be for the United States – logistically, financially and politically. First in line is the US ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, a lawyer by education, whose task has increasingly tended to soothing nervous European allies. 'Look, European security is on top of my mind,' he said at a recent public forum in Brussels. 'America needs allies, we can't do it all alone. And the reports on the US drawing down its troop presence are absolutely not true. Everything else we will discuss with our allies.' Right now, the US has nearly 84,000 active service members in Europe, according to the US European Command (EUCOM) in Stuttgart. The total number varies due to planned exercises and regular rotations of troops in and out of the continent. For example, following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, some 20,000 were deployed to states neighbouring Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine to support Ukraine and contain the conflict. Over the course of the war, the total number of troops has ranged between approximately 75,000 and 105,000 military personnel, primarily from the Air Force, Army, and Navy. The bulk of those troops is stationed in Germany (40,000), Poland (14,000), Italy (13,000) and the UK (10,000) with the rest scattered across the continent from Norway to Turkey. The practical logistics of a US withdrawal from Europe, such as redeployments to the US or elsewhere, would be significant and time-consuming. 'If this were to happen in a systematic manner, it would take many months, probably at least a year,' Mark Cancian, a retired colonel and senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, told Euronews. 'The entire equipment, every tank, needs to be prepared and shipped. Then the families of the soldiers need to be shipped and finally the service members themselves,' he added. 'All in all, a quarter of a million people might be impacted, maybe more.' The biggest problem would be where they might go. 'Current bases in the US could absorb 5,000 people, maybe 10,000,' Cancian said. 'But the rest? It would take years to build new facilities.' Whether Trump would decide something of that strategic and political magnitude the effects of which would only almost certainly be seen beyond his presidential term is more than doubtful, according to Ian Lesser, a senior political analyst at the German Marshall Fund (GMF), a transatlantic think tank. 'We already saw an attempt by Trump to withdraw a sizable force from Europe during his first term, which only met considerable resistance from the security community in the US and was eventually shelved by President Biden,' Lesser told Euronews. The US Congress would also have to approve the withdrawal, which is not certain given the number of defence hawks, especially in the Senate. A recent bipartisan draft proposal by Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Richard Blumenthal on tougher anti-Russian sanctions reportedly has the backing of up to 90 of the 100 senators. 'Trump has no desire to look weak. But a dramatic reduction of the American military footprint in Europe would do exactly that to him,' Lesser said. In addition, a large part of the US forces in Europe are not members of combat brigades, which typically consist of about 5,000 soldiers each, but support troops who man a huge military infrastructure, especially in Germany. Historically, Ramstein Air Base, for instance, and its neighbouring Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the largest American hospital outside the United States, played a key role in supporting forward military operations, especially in the Middle East. 'It would make little sense to announce plans to withdraw US troops from Europe the moment there is an escalating war happening between Israel and Iran,' former US ambassador William Courtney told Euronews. 'And it would probably lead to massive criticism,' added Courtney, an adjunct senior fellow at the RAND Corporation, a global think tank. And then there are Trump's efforts to mediate in the war in Ukraine. 'Trump viewed a US troop withdrawal in connection with his strong hopes for an end of the war and improved relations with Moscow. Yet, it turned out there is no basis for that, no possibility, the negotiating positions of Russia and Ukraine being too far apart,' Courtney said. Were US troops to be withdrawn, Europe would have to replace the entire military infrastructure currently provided by the US at all levels, according to a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) based in London. That means bases, training areas, weaponry and ammunition, administrative and organisational architecture, intelligence provisions and much more. This comes with a hefty price tag: the nine authors of the IISS study estimate that replacing the US contribution to NATO with European assets would amount to approximately $1 trillion (€870 billion). It's not clear what the cost of a US troop withdrawal would mean for the US taxpayer. None of the experts quoted in this article was ready to advance a number. That's one reason none of them considered such a decision as very likely. 'No way,' Daniel Runde told Euronews, a senior advisor with Washington-based consulting firm BGR Group and author of The American Imperative: Reclaiming Global Leadership through Soft Power. 'Trump will absolutely not do it. His aim is to get the Europeans to spend 5% of their GDP on defence. Then he will move on.'
