Attacking Iran, Israel brazenly defies 'man of peace' Trump
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump on Thursday implored Israel not to attack Iran and declared once again his goal was to be a peacemaker.
Hours later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of Trump's closest international allies, brazenly defied his advice by unleashing a major military campaign described as a "pre-emptive" strike against Iran's nuclear program.
The attack marks only the latest setback for Trump's lofty goal set out at the start of his second term of being a "man of peace."
Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump has also boasted a warm relationship, has rebuffed his overtures on a ceasefire with Ukraine.
And Israel resumed another massive offensive in Gaza after talks bogged down on extending a ceasefire with Hamas reached with Trump's support at the end of his predecessor Joe Biden's term.
Trump's friend and roving envoy Steve Witkoff - who has negotiated in all three crises - had been set to meet Iranian officials again Sunday in Oman.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a statement made clear the United States was not involved in attacking Iran and warned Tehran not to retaliate against US troops in the region.
Rubio said that Israel advised that it attacked out of "self-defence," but conspicuously did not say if the United States agreed. Trump, hours before the strikes, doubled down with a social media post saying he remained "committed to a diplomatic resolution" on Iran.
Netanyahu has described Iran's cleric-run government, which backs Hamas, as an existential threat and already last year ordered strikes that knocked out its air defences.
"We've clearly seen a fork in the road in the American and Israeli approaches to this problem set," said Dana Stroul, a former senior Pentagon official who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
"These strikes are going to disrupt and delay and degrade Iran's nuclear program. The question, I think, is whether or not the United States and Israel in the future are going to work together on what to do to maximize the time that's put back on the clock," she said.
INCREASINGLY AT ODDS
Stroul noted that rifts had been building between Israel and Trump, who last month agreed to remove sanctions on Syria after former Islamist guerrilla Ahmed al-Sharaa swept into power.
Trump embraced the new Syrian leader after appeals on a tour of Gulf Arab monarchies - which have also backed diplomacy on Iran.
In Qatar last month, Trump said after meeting the emir that he believed a deal was in sight with Iran and that there would be no "nuclear dust" over the region.
Despite growing disagreements, Israel enjoys robust support in Trump's right-wing base.
The Trump administration in recent days has again taken lonely positions to back Israel, with the United States casting one of the only votes at the UN General Assembly against a Gaza ceasefire resolution and criticising top allies, including Britain, for imposing sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers.
Justin Logan, director of defence and foreign policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the Israeli attack will "destroy US diplomatic efforts" on Iran and called for Trump to reject any US military role in protecting Israel from retaliation.
"Israel has the right to choose its own foreign policy. At the same time, it has the responsibility to bear the costs of that policy," he said.
But lawmakers in Trump's Republican Party quickly rallied behind Israel. Senator Tom Cotton said that the United States should "back Israel to the hilt, all the way," and topple Iran's Islamic Republic if it targets US troops.
Trump's Democratic rivals, who mostly backed his diplomacy on Iran, were aghast at Israel's action on the eve of new US-Iran talks.
"Israel's alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence," said Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Forces Committee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
38 minutes ago
- IOL News
Trump's white South African resettlement plan and the global colour line
The narrative that white South Africans are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. Image: File/X THE arrival of over 3 000 white South Africans in the United States under President Donald Trump's fast-tracked refugee resettlement programme is a racial spectacle of historic proportions. Framed by Trump as a rescue mission from 'racial discrimination' and even 'genocide' in post-apartheid South Africa, the scheme repackages whiteness as victimhood while reasserting racial hierarchies through the veneer of humanitarian concern. Cheryl Harris's seminal concept of 'whiteness as property' is especially instructive here. This programme protects not the displaced, but the entitlements embedded in whiteness — land, social status, and the right to global mobility. These arrivals, facilitated under a controversial executive order, mark the first time in US history that white South Africans have been accepted en masse as refugees. The move has drawn intense scrutiny, with South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola dismissing the claims as 'unfounded and inflammatory'. He clarified that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had no involvement and had consistently found no basis for refugee status for white South Africans. 'The resettlement of South Africans under the guise of being 'refugees' is a political project to delegitimise our democracy,' Lamola asserted. The narrative that white South Africans — particularly Afrikaner farmers — are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. In February 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14152: Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa, suspending non-essential aid. He cited South Africa's land reform policies and its support for Palestine at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as evidence of 'anti-white discrimination'. His language echoed apartheid-era rhetoric, framing land expropriation without compensation — a constitutional measure designed to redress historical injustice — as proof of racial targeting. This is not a story about humanitarian rescue. It is about the repackaging of privilege as persecution. Trump's administration, by reclassifying specific 'South African communities' for humanitarian parole, has revived the settler-native divide. As Mahmood Mamdani has noted, this manoeuvre casts descendants of apartheid's beneficiaries as 'refugees' and South Africa itself as the oppressor. Achille Mbembe's critique of global humanism is relevant here: the programme renders Black suffering invisible while privileging whiteness as a passport to refuge and legitimacy. Consequently, while Black refugees languish in camps, whiteness is deemed inherently worthy of protection, effectively enacting a form of apartheid within the asylum system itself. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing a 'well-founded fear of persecution.' Neither the Convention nor US law has ever interpreted this to include the loss of economic dominance or historical privilege. Fleeing land redistribution or reduced social status does not amount to persecution, especially when these changes are legally enacted by a democratic society seeking to correct historical wrongs. The parallels to earlier racial engineering are striking. In 1932, the US-sponsored *Carnegie Poor White Study* analysed the 'problem' of poor whites in South Africa. The initiative was not rooted in concern for poverty but in preserving white supremacy. The report warned that poor whites threatened the racial order and recommended state interventions to uplift them, while black South Africans were systematically excluded from similar support. This laid the foundation for apartheid's white welfare state and established a pattern of American intervention when white South Africans faced hardship, real or perceived. Trump's resettlement scheme is the 21st-century iteration of this pattern. White South Africans are framed not as beneficiaries of a violent racial order, but as victims of transformation, worthy of rescue. South Africa's Constitutional Court recently affirmed that acquiring foreign nationality — whether through refugee resettlement or otherwise — does not automatically strip someone of South African citizenship. In a landmark ruling, the Court struck down a section of the Citizenship Act that had quietly revoked citizenship without due process, calling the move irrational and unconstitutional. However, the case of these white South Africans is unique. Their refugee claims are based on false premises and a political agenda. South Africa may therefore have grounds to argue that accepting the US offer constitutes a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. The Constitutional Court's ruling on dual citizenship might not protect them in this politically charged context. Nowhere is the hypocrisy more glaring than in the American South. In the Mississippi Delta, six Black farmworkers filed a federal lawsuit in 2021 after being replaced by white South Africans brought in under the H-2A visa programme. The plaintiffs, many descended from enslaved people who built Southern agriculture, earned just $7.25 per hour — the federal minimum wage — while their white South African replacements were paid over $11. The lawsuit alleges that these Black workers were forced to train their replacements, who were then housed in better accommodations and elevated in status simply because they were white. Between 2011 and 2020, the number of South Africans on H-2A visas increased by 441%, making them the second-largest national group in the programme. The majority are white. The message is clear: in the racial calculus of US capitalism, white foreign labour is worth more than black American lives. Mexican seasonal workers, once the backbone of US agriculture, are also increasingly excluded — both by border walls and by labour policies that privilege whiteness over need. The result is a reshuffling of the global racial order, disguised as economic necessity. Trump's South African refugee programme is less about humanitarian concern and more about reaffirming a hierarchy of global suffering, where privilege continues to mask itself as victimhood. What we are witnessing is the reinforcement of a global colour line — one where whiteness retains its claim to mobility, safety, and opportunity, while blackness and brownness are rendered threats to be contained. The implications are profound: Refugee systems that prioritise whiteness over need. Economic visas favour white foreign farmers over Black citizens. Historical privilege is purposely mistaken for victimhood. This is not humanitarianism. It is neo-colonialism in motion. As the world watches Trump engineer the next stage of global apartheid, we must ask: What kind of refugee is it when only the privileged are welcome? When does skin colour ration citizenship, safety, and opportunity? If the notion of 'refuge' is to mean anything, it must centre justice, not historical comfort. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Watch – A look at Israel's attack on Iran and Trump's authoritarian turn
In this episode of The Readiness Report, Redi Tlhabi and veteran journalist Phillip van Niekerk, delve into the escalating tensions in the Middle East, following a significant Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear and military sites. They discuss Israel's motives, potential repercussions, and the United States' ambiguous role in these developments. The discussion also touches on domestic issues in the US, including Trump's controversial military parade on his birthday, the crackdown on immigrants in California, and increasing authoritarian tendencies under his administration.
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Macron urges renewed nuclear dialogue after Israel's Iran strikes
France's President Emmanuel Macron on Friday urged the US and Iran to resume nuclear talks following a wave of Israeli strikes against Iran. "Iran bears a heavy responsibility in the destabilisation of the whole region," he said after Western nations in recent days accused Tehran of deliberately escalating its nuclear programme, despite several rounds of US-Iran talks. "We call for the resumption of dialogue and the reaching of a deal." US President Donald Trump's Middle East pointman Steve Witkoff had been set to hold a sixth round of talks with Iran on Sunday in Oman. After Israel's deadly strikes early on Friday, Trump afterwards urged Iran to "make a deal, before there is nothing left", warning of "even more brutal" attacks to come. Macron, who earlier on Friday defended Israel's right to protect itself, said France could help in the case of an Iranian retaliation against Israel. "If Israel were to be attacked in retaliation by Iran, France, if in a position to do so, would take part in protection and defence operations," he said. Macron earlier in the day spoke by phone to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Elysee said, following a spike in diplomatic tensions. The French presidency said the phone conversation took place but did not provide details. Relations between Macron and Netanyahu have been strained in recent months over Israel's blockade of Gaza and France's plans to recognise a Palestinian state. - UN meeting postponed - France and Saudi Arabia have been planning to co-chair a UN conference on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians next week in New York. But Macron said on Friday evening that meeting had been postponed. "While we have to postpone this conference for logistical and security reasons, it will take place as soon as possible," Macron said at a press conference. Israel pounded Iran in a series of air raids, striking 100 targets including nuclear and military sites, as well as killing the armed forces' chief of staff. In the aftermath of the strikes, Macron also spoke with leaders including Trump and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Earlier Friday, Macron said Israel had the right to defend itself and ensure its security but also called for de-escalation. "To avoid jeopardising the stability of the entire region, I call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to de-escalate," he said on X. Macron spoke after convening a meeting of the National Defence and Security Council. "All necessary steps will be taken to protect our nationals and our diplomatic and military missions in the region," Macron said. Iran has gradually broken away from its commitments under the nuclear deal it struck with world powers including the United States and France in 2015. The landmark deal provided Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its atomic programme, but it fell apart after the unilateral withdrawal of the United States during Trump's first term in 2018.
