Philip Gordon, former Kamala Harris adviser: 'Netanyahu called Trump's bluff' by striking Iran
The Trump administration seemed to be pursuing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, but then Trump expressed support for Israeli military strikes. Did he just run out of patience with Iran?
I am skeptical of the notion that Trump masterfully lulled Iran into complacency with diplomacy and then decided to enforce his "redline" with military force. Trump desperately wanted a nuclear deal with Iran and publicly and privately told Israel not to strike. But a confident Netanyahu called Trump's bluff, told him Israel needed to act, and Trump felt no choice but to go along. He now has to act as if this was his call, but in so doing finds himself having to defend Israel in a war he did not want but could not prevent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
25 minutes ago
- LeMonde
Federal judge denies the Trump administration's request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
A federal judge ruled on Friday, August 15, to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy that has been in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. US District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing "déjà vu" after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. "There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they had made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, "These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical." Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. "But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void," he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the US government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) could detain child immigrants to 72 hours; the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week − including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days − according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours, while 14 children − including toddlers − were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed " Alligator Alcatraz ," where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated.
Fashion Network
2 hours ago
- Fashion Network
Is anybody fighting back in this trade war?
By no means does the firm anticipate zero harm. Business confidence is down but not collapsing. Capital spending will be constrained. And while chances of recession are still high, a better outcome remains very plausible. This sort of guarded optimism — or qualified pessimism — is a break from the dark warnings. Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, told leaders to prepare for a worst-case scenario in which an antagonistic US drags the world into destructive economic conflict. The prime minister of Singapore, a city-state that thrived during the heyday of free trade, couldn't hide his dismay: Tariffs aren't the actions of friends, Lawrence Wong noted. His Canadian counterpart, Mark Carney, declared that relations with the US would be changed forever. Chinese President Xi Jinping has studiously matched American moves but also toned down his rhetoric and actions when appropriate. Washington and Beijing this week extended a pause on higher tariffs for 90 days, the latest in a series of suspensions. India, which has been the subject of some bullish projections as China's economy has slowed, is one of the few economies of significance that hasn't cut a deal with Trump. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi also hasn't gone measure for measure or shown a desire to get even with American businesses. Yes, there has been indignity and hurt feelings. The governor of the Reserve Bank of India dismissed Trump's claim that commerce was dead there. He touted India's contribution to global growth — about 18% compared to around 11% for the US — and insisted the local economy was doing well. This is in the ballpark, based on IMF projections. It also misses the point that in pure size, America dwarfs India. Brazil, a comer that struggles to make good on its potential, is also refusing to bend. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva loathes dependence on the US and wants to be treated as an equal. But Trump doesn't like a court case against Lula's predecessor for allegedly plotting a coup. Brazil is trying to develop an alternative to the dollar and places great store in commercial ties to the BRICS group of emerging economies. Many of those nations, and aspiring members of the bloc, have cut deals with Trump, or are likely to do so. Brazil will come to some arrangement. So has Trump got away with it? His aides reckoned that access to the American market is too lucrative to pass up, and they may have been right. It would also be naive to conclude there won't be any cost. The global economy has slowed but hasn't crashed, foreigners still purchase US Treasuries and it's a safe bet that the greenback will be at the centre of the financial system for years. But the nations humiliated won't forget this experience. Asia's economies will only get bigger and the siren call of greater integration with China will get louder. Trump's efforts to destroy the existing order may yet prove an own goal. Just not this year. Clayton, who became the top economic official at the State Department, believed that robust trade among the shattered nations of Western Europe was as important as physical rebuilding. The economic dislocation wrought by the conflagration had been underestimated; capitalism could revive the continent and prevent the political implosion of key countries. According to Benn Steil's book The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War, Clayton insisted that the US 'must run this show.' Trump's team brag about reconfiguring the system that grew from the ideals of the post-war era. The hubris may ultimately prove misplaced.
LeMonde
2 hours ago
- LeMonde
'The decision to 'take control' of the Gaza Strip sheds light on the ideological consistency of the Israeli prime minister'
On Friday, August 8, the Israeli security cabinet decided to evacuate the city of Gaza – meaning more than 1,000,000 people who had already been displaced – aiming to complete the operation by October 7. The same cabinet also approved "taking control" of the Gaza Strip. This term was chosen instead of "occupation" because it carries no legal implications; After all, an occupation regime grants rights to the occupied population and specifically protects them against forced displacement. The decision reveals the ideological consistency of the Israeli prime minister. Often depicted as motivated solely by the desire to stay in office and to avoid his court cases – essentially as a master opportunist – Benjamin Netanyahu has, in reality, consistently pursued a structured political project: the destruction of the Palestinian national project in favor of a "Greater Israel." Aligned with the views of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Netanyahu has always rejected the idea of a Palestinian state. To oppose the Oslo Accords, he participated in vehement protests shortly before the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and has always refused to meet with Mahmoud Abbas. In both his writings and speeches, he asserts that Palestinians do not exist − only "Arabs" − thus denying the historical existence of these people. Netanyahu's objective now appears clear: To make Gaza ungovernable and unlivable, to empty the territory of its population and to establish Jewish settlements there, reducing Palestinians to a minority living under Israeli domination. To those who still doubt, let us remember his advice in 2015 regarding the Iranian nuclear program: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then what is it? (...) It's a duck." In this case, it is indeed a project of annexation and forced displacement of Palestinians, whether in Gaza or in the occupied territories. Internal consequences across Israel In Gaza, however, the occupation will be even harsher than in the West Bank. The scenario being considered is one of strict military control, with areas forbidden to Palestinians, the sorting of the population through checkpoints aided by artificial intelligence and an encouragement to leave. A report by the Boston Consulting Group even mentions the possibility of transferring 25% of Gazans to Ethiopia or Somalia. At the government level, mechanisms to implement this "departure" policy have already been created.
