Trump promises 'irrefutable' facts about Iran bombing to defend 'dignity of our great American pilots'
Trump has hit out at a 'witch hunt' against Benjamin Netanyahu as he faces accusations of corruption.
'Bibi and I just went through HELL together, fighting a very tough and brilliant longtime enemy of Israel, Iran,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.
'Bibi could not have been better, sharper, or stronger in his LOVE for the incredible Holy Land. Anybody else would have suffered losses, embarrassment, and chaos! Bibi Netanyahu was a WARRIOR, like perhaps no other Warrior in the History of Israel.'
Trump heaped praise on his ally, revealing 'there is no one that I know who could have worked in better harmony with the President of the United States, ME.'
'It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu.
'THIS TRAVESTY OF 'JUSTICE' CAN NOT BE ALLOWED!'
Trump said he and Netanyahu were fighting 'literally for the Survival of Israel.'
'Such a WITCH HUNT, for a man who has given so much, is unthinkable to me. He deserves much better than this, and so does the State of Israel.'
Trump called for a full and sweeping pardon of Netanyahu, or for the entire trial to be 'cancelled immediately' in honor of the 'Great Hero, who has done so much for the State.'
Trump calls for Israel to 'cancel' corruption trial against Netanyahu
Netanyahu is the first Israeli prime minister will take the stand as a criminal defendant, over charges of accepting tens of thousands of dollars' worth of gifts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Gulf allies believe Israel is out of control after ‘reckless' war
Israel's attack on Iran risks triggering a lasting rupture with its Middle Eastern allies, Gulf Arab officials have warned. Once seen as the region's chief guarantor against the Iranian nuclear threat, Israel is now increasingly viewed as its most destabilising force after entering conflict with Tehran, which one Arab diplomat characterised as 'unforgivably reckless'. Although some officials admitted that they hoped Israel had succeeded in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, representatives of three Gulf states have expressed alarm about its growing military dominance and Benjamin Netanyahu's willingness to wield it. Speaking on condition of anonymity, one official said: 'He appears to be beyond restraint – in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now Iran. 'Unchecked, uncontrollable power is no longer an asset for us. It is a problem.' Growing concern about Israel's 'destabilising' role threatens the legacy of the Abraham Accords, the series of agreements under which the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan normalised relations with Israel. Hailed as a landmark moment for Israel's integration into the Arab world after decades of hostility, the accords were Donald Trump 's signature foreign policy achievement in his first term. US officials had hoped Saudi Arabia would eventually follow suit but expectations have dwindled since Israel's war in Gaza, which drew sharp denunciations from Riyadh. Gulf states were drawn to the accords partly because they enabled them to forge a united front against Iran. Tehran's nuclear ambitions, missile development and sponsorship of proxy militias were seen as the region's primary threat. The accords also facilitated intelligence sharing and military cooperation at a time when Washington seemed to be disengaging from the region. That Israel now risks replacing Iran as the chief source of instability is an irony. It reflects rising anxiety over what Gulf states, which have preferred to seek a diplomatic solution with Iran, increasingly see as Israel's boundless military ambition.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Why UK needs to pander to Trump but should not necessarily believe him
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Following the US attack on Iran, Donald Trump said its nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and fully obliterated', setting back the tyrannical regime's plans by 'decades'. However, according to a leaked preliminary assessment by the Pentagon, the missile strikes only caused a delay of a few months. Amid the ensuing uproar over these very different takes, the US President attacked the media for reporting the classified document's findings, saying they were "scum" and "disgusting", while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused those behind the leak of being "professional stabbers". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But, clearly, what matters is what has actually happened. If Iran still has the ability to quickly develop nuclear weapons, the world needs to be alive to that threat. With the situation still unclear, it would be far better to err on the side of caution. Keir Starmer speaks to US President Donald Trump at the Nato summit in The Hague (Picture: Kin Cheung/pool) | Getty Images Axis of Autocracies Where Trump deserves credit is that the US attack has demonstrated to Iran's leaders how vulnerable they are, and this may have a deterring effect on a regime, widely despised by its own people, which poses a very real threat to world peace. It is a member of what former Nato Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has described as the 'Axis of Autocracies', along with Russia, China and North Korea. The combined threat these dictatorships pose is the reason why the world needs a much stronger Nato. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And that means European leaders must sometimes swallow their pride and be rather sycophantic towards Trump, even as he continues to cast doubt on his commitment to the Nato treaty which states an attack on one will be treated as an attack on all. The UK and Europe have no choice but to spend more on defence – commensurate with the increased threats facing the world and also, again erring on the side of caution, in case Trump decides to withdraw from the alliance, formally or not.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Who won the 12-day war?
As the dust settles from the United States and Israel's sweeping strikes on the Islamic Republic regime's nuclear infrastructure, a new battle has begun – one of narratives. Who really won? What damage was truly done? And what, precisely, has changed? The regime in Tehran claims resilience. Israel says deterrence has been re-established. Washington insists it achieved total destruction and victory. But beneath the declarations is the harder reality: wars don't end with scoreboards, but with contested facts and uncertain consequences. Caution is warranted. The regime survives. Its ideology remains intact. Its opacity has deepened. What has been destroyed may eventually be rebuilt What is clear is that the campaign against Iran was unprecedented in scope and ambition. Over 12 days, Israel and the United States launched coordinated strikes against three core components of the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme: Natanz, Isfahan, and the heavily fortified Fordow complex. According to the Israel Defence Forces, the operation had been in preparation for years, fast-tracked only when intelligence pointed to the regime approaching a nuclear 'point of no return'. The strikes were designed not merely to degrade, but to paralyse. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the outcome a 'historic victory', citing the elimination of major nuclear sites, missile launchers, and 29 senior military officials. President Trump, speaking at the Nato summit in the Hague, was similarly blunt: 'It's gone for years, years.' He likened the impact to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not in scale of destruction, but in strategic finality. A war-ender. There is evidence to support that view. The Islamic Republic's own foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baqaei, admitted to Al-Jazeera that the strikes had caused 'severe damage' to its nuclear infrastructure and dealt a heavy blow to diplomatic efforts. But just how severe remains unclear. A preliminary US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment, leaked to the press, offers a more cautious view. It suggests the Fordow facility's underground core may still be structurally intact, and that the programme could recover within months. A senior DIA official later clarified that this was 'a preliminary, low confidence assessment – not a final conclusion,' and that on-site inspection will be necessary to draw firm conclusions. Israeli sources have echoed the uncertainty, though cautiously. Two officials speaking to ABC News reportedly said it was too early to declare the operation a success. One described the outcome at Fordow as 'really not good,' citing unresolved questions about how much enriched uranium was moved before the strikes and how many centrifuges might still be salvageable. But such accounts, like the DIA leak itself, are fragments: partial views of a wider intelligence mosaic. Media coverage tends to extract individual assessments or snippets of conversation, often out of context and shaped by editorial agendas. Just as states craft their narratives, so too do news organisations, whose reporting may amplify ambiguity while overlooking the classified consensus. As one Israeli source noted, establishing the full picture could take months, or prove impossible, but whatever conclusions emerge will come from comprehensive analysis, not headlines. Adding to the ambiguity is the Islamic Republic's decision to suspend all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed that the agency no longer knows the location of nearly 900 pounds of enriched uranium that the regime claims it moved for 'protective reasons'. However, the Islamic Republic regime is known to lie, and certainly would like us to worry they have rescued plenty of their costly nuclear material. With inspections halted, the international community is being asked to assess a disappearing target. But if the technical picture is clouded, the political one is sharper. The regime's retaliation began with brutality. On the first day responding to Israel's strikes it fired between 150 and 250 ballistic missiles at Israeli cities and military targets, inflicting serious damage and killing civilians. But as Israeli strikes dismantled launch sites and disrupted command infrastructure, the volume of fire steadily declined. What began as a lethal barrage soon became a dwindling trickle: fewer than 20 missiles a day by the final phase, though still deadly. Some of the missiles were more advanced, which might mean the lower numbers reflected an attempt to conserve capability as options narrowed. Overall, what looked initially like defiance gave way to degradation. Its sole retaliation against the United States was even more revealing. The regime struck a US base in Qatar apparently with full advance warning. All personnel were evacuated. No damage occurred. The message was scripted for domestic audiences: a performance of strength carefully choreographed to avoid escalation. In effect, a surrender disguised as a counterstrike. That the regime accepted a ceasefire just hours after its most devastating losses, including the assassination of nearly 30 senior commanders, reinforces the point. This was not a negotiated pause; it was a forced halt. Still, caution is warranted. The regime survives. Its ideology remains intact. Its opacity has deepened. What has been destroyed may eventually be rebuilt. The wager of the strikes is that deterrence will hold, and that the risk and cost of recovery will deter the attempt. President Trump has made his position clear: any renewed enrichment will trigger another strike. 'Sure,' he said, when asked whether the US would act again. For now, the Islamic Republic appears to believe him. So, who won? Israel and the United States achieved their stated operational goals. They inflicted profound damage, exposed the regime's strategic weakness, and imposed a ceasefire on their terms. The Islamic Republic responded with posture, not power. But war is not only about what is destroyed. It is about what is rebuilt, and who gets to decide. That contest is not over. The war may have ended. The struggle over its meaning has just begun.
