‘Clarity': Donald Trump lays down the rules for Iran and Israel
Sky News host Paul Murray discusses his love for US President Donald Trump.
Mr Murray praised Donald Trump's 'clarity' on the Israel-Iran war.
'I love the clarity.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
NATO members commit to spending hike sought by Trump
NATO leaders have backed a big increase in military spending that US President Donald Trump had demanded, and restated their commitment to defend each other from attack after a brief summit in the Netherlands. While Trump got what he wanted at the annual meeting, tailor-made for him, his NATO allies will be relieved that he committed to the military alliance's fundamental principle of collective defence. Trump told a press conference that "we had a great victory here," adding that he hoped that the additional funds would be spent on military hardware made in the United States. .@POTUS at the NATO summit: "We're with them all the way... They have very big things to announce... I've been asking them to go up to 5% for a number of years... I think that's going to be very big news. NATO's going to become very strong with us." Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 25, 2025 However, he threatened to punish Spain after Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez declared it could meet its commitments to NATO while spending much less than the new target of five per cent of GDP. "I think it's terrible. You know, they (Spain) are doing very well ... And that economy could be blown right out of the water when something bad happens," Trump said, adding that Spain would get a tougher trade deal from the US than other European Union countries. In a five-point statement, NATO endorsed the higher defence spending goal - a response not only to Trump but also to Europeans' fears that Russia poses a growing threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The 32 allies' brief communique added: "We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - that an attack on one is an attack on all." Asked to clarify his own stance on Article 5, Trump said: "I stand with it. That's why I'm here. If I didn't stand with it, I wouldn't be here." 🚨 @SecGenNATO: "For too long, one ally, the United States, carried too much of the burden of that commitment — and that changes today. President Trump — dear Donald — you made this change possible... we will produce trillions more for our common defense to make us stronger and… Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 25, 2025 Trump had long demanded in no uncertain terms that other countries step up their spending to reduce NATO's heavy reliance on the US. Despite an appearance of general agreement, French President Emmanuel Macron raised the issue of the steep import tariffs threatened by Trump, and the damage they may do to transatlantic trade, as a barrier to increased military spending. "We can't say we are going to spend more and then, at the heart of NATO, launch a trade war," Macron said, calling it "an aberration". He said he had raised it several times with Trump. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who hosted the summit in his home city of The Hague, said NATO would emerge as a "stronger, fairer and more lethal" alliance. The former Dutch prime minister said Trump deserved "all the praise" for getting NATO members to agree on raising defence spending. Asked by a reporter if he had deployed excessive flattery to keep Trump onside during the summit, Rutte said the two men were friends and judgment of his approach was a matter of taste. The new spending target - to be achieved over the next 10 years - is a jump worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the current goal of two per cent of GDP, although it will be measured differently. Countries pledged to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on core defence - such as troops and weapons - and 1.5 per cent on broader defence-related measures such as cyber security, protecting pipelines and adapting roads and bridges to handle heavy military vehicles.
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Political opinion puzzle after ex-ABC host's court win
A decision awarding $70,000 in damages to an ABC radio host fired for her views on Gaza has been seen as "groundbreaking" but raises further questions about what can be claimed as a political opinion. Antoinette Lattouf was dismissed three days into a five-day casual radio shift due to a co-ordinated campaign of complaints from pro-Israel lobbyists. The 41-year-old shared a Human Rights Watch post saying Israel was using starvation as a "weapon of war" in Gaza before she was terminated. Justice Darryl Rangiah found the ABC had unlawfully fired her for holding a political opinion. The decision was "groundbreaking" and gave clarity to employers about political opinions expressed by employees off-duty, Associate Professor of Law Giuseppe Carabetta told AAP. There were still questions which remained however, he said, pointing to comments he had received that the judgment would help someone get away with hate speech. "I don't think the decision means that at all," he said. "But we still don't know how far political opinion will go. That's the unknown." The decision has led to one legal not-for-profit calling for clarity with a national human rights act. "(This litigation) draws attention to the current lack of a constitutional right to freedom of speech in Australia," said Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson Greg Barns SC. "A federal human rights act would ensure that those who wield power such as employers are subject to a code of conduct that would prevent them from exercising this power in a way that infringes upon people's rights." Justice Rangiah is yet to determine whether the ABC will pay a penalty or Lattouf's legal costs. On Wednesday, the organisation's managing director Hugh Marks admitted on ABC News that more than $1 million spent defending the case was not a good use of taxpayer money.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Political opinion puzzle after ex-ABC host's court win
A decision awarding $70,000 in damages to an ABC radio host fired for her views on Gaza has been seen as "groundbreaking" but raises further questions about what can be claimed as a political opinion. Antoinette Lattouf was dismissed three days into a five-day casual radio shift due to a co-ordinated campaign of complaints from pro-Israel lobbyists. The 41-year-old shared a Human Rights Watch post saying Israel was using starvation as a "weapon of war" in Gaza before she was terminated. Justice Darryl Rangiah found the ABC had unlawfully fired her for holding a political opinion. The decision was "groundbreaking" and gave clarity to employers about political opinions expressed by employees off-duty, Associate Professor of Law Giuseppe Carabetta told AAP. There were still questions which remained however, he said, pointing to comments he had received that the judgment would help someone get away with hate speech. "I don't think the decision means that at all," he said. "But we still don't know how far political opinion will go. That's the unknown." The decision has led to one legal not-for-profit calling for clarity with a national human rights act. "(This litigation) draws attention to the current lack of a constitutional right to freedom of speech in Australia," said Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson Greg Barns SC. "A federal human rights act would ensure that those who wield power such as employers are subject to a code of conduct that would prevent them from exercising this power in a way that infringes upon people's rights." Justice Rangiah is yet to determine whether the ABC will pay a penalty or Lattouf's legal costs. On Wednesday, the organisation's managing director Hugh Marks admitted on ABC News that more than $1 million spent defending the case was not a good use of taxpayer money.
