logo
Amid Iran-Israel's fragile truce, Trump and Netanyahu battle to control war narratives

Amid Iran-Israel's fragile truce, Trump and Netanyahu battle to control war narratives

Straits Times5 hours ago

A ceasefire is now in force in the Middle East, and it appears to be holding, says the writer. PHOTO: AFP
- There is little doubt that US President Donald Trump has emerged much strengthened as a result of his handling of what he calls the '12-Day War' between Israel and Iran.
By ordering US jets to bomb Iranian nuclear installations, Mr Trump has reaffirmed America's close strategic bonds with Israel.
Yet the US leader also managed something all his immediate predecessors in Washington had failed to achieve: get Israel to stop fighting at a time of America's choosing.
After what a visibly angry Mr Trump described as an 'extraordinarily tough and direct' phone call with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on June 24, the Israeli leader ordered his jets to turn around in mid-flight and stop hitting Iranian targets.
A ceasefire is now in force in the Middle East, and it appears to be holding. So, the American leader can claim with some justification that his immediate strategic objectives were met.
'It was my great honour to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!' Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social, his favourite platform.
The snag for Mr Trump is that at least some people in the US intelligence community do not believe that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been destroyed.
And the current ceasefire is unlikely to give the US much respite, either.
The US administration is embarrassed by a leaked report apparently compiled by the Defence Intelligence Agency, a branch of the American military, which seemingly suggested that Mr Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear facilities were 'obliterated' was overstated.
US and Israeli raids on Iran's nuclear facilities – the leaked report allegedly concludes – may have succeeded only in delaying Iran's quest for nuclear weapons by around six months.
Ms Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokeswoman, rushed to dismiss such claims as 'flat-out wrong' and as 'a clear attempt to demean President Trump'.
The administration has promised to provide the US Congress with detailed briefings on the impact of the US attacks on Iran.
Yet, almost regardless of what it does, the Trump White House is likely to remain on the back foot.
It probably matters very little when the full bomb damage assessment on the US attacks is released, or what that assessment will say, for the Washington administration is certain to be accused of 'doctoring' the intelligence information to suit its political needs, and no assessment is likely to be accepted as either definitive or accurate by supporters or critics of the US government.
Either way, the struggle to control the narrative about the latest war will plague Mr Trump for a long time.
Meanwhile, Mr Netanyahu is struggling with his own battle to control the political narrative.
Mr Trump's decision to name the Iran-Israel confrontation as the '12-Day War' represents a shrewd nod to Israel.
The name evokes another brief previous conflict, the Six-Day War, which occurred in June 1967, when Israel decisively defeated the armies of all its immediate neighbours.
That episode is regarded in Israel as a pivotal moment in the emergence of the Jewish state as a modern, technologically superior actor, able to reshape not only its immediate surroundings, but also the rest of the Middle East.
Mr Trump evidently wants to flatter Israel into believing that the latest clashes with Iran are just as significant as the war fought more than half a century ago.
And to some extent, the brief war between Israel and Iran is transformative for the Middle East.
The Israelis not only hit hard Iran's nuclear installations but also destroyed Iran's air defences, the bulk of Iran's missile stocks and Iran's regional proxies, including the much-feared Hezbollah, until recently considered the world's most potent non-state militia.
And, conversely, Iran is at its weakest since the establishment of the Islamic Republic back in 1979.
So, soon after the ceasefire in the Iran-Israel war took hold in the early hours of June 24, Mr Netanyahu rushed to claim 'a historic victory' for Israel, and rumours spread that he may well dissolve the current Israeli Parliament and call early elections.
But political euphoria in Israeli government circles soon subsided for at least three reasons.
First, the fact that Israel was forced to stop the fighting under the direct and very public orders of Mr Trump reduced Mr Netanyahu's ability to claim a complete victory and his claims that he enjoyed a close strategic bond with the US President.
Furthermore, although the Israeli Prime Minister's popularity ratings have risen as a result of the war with Iran, most of his new votes appear to come from the electorate of the far-right smaller parties in his current governing coalition, rather than at the expense of the centre-left opposition parties.
So, although Mr Netanyahu is more popular at the moment, he still risks losing a snap election, because he has not succeeded in shifting the fundamental electoral balance.
And then, there is the awkward fact that, try as hard as he may, Mr Netanyahu cannot ignore Gaza, where the Israeli military remains bogged down in a cruel war which continues to inflict untold suffering on Palestinian civilians, but does nothing to gain the release of the 50-odd Israeli hostages still kept by Hamas, the militant Palestinian organisation.
Seven Israeli soldiers were killed in southern Gaza on June 24 – this was the single largest Israeli military loss in many months, and a sober reminder that the Gaza war remains one conflict in which Mr Netanyahu cannot claim any victory, let alone a supposedly 'historic' one.
The received wisdom in Israeli political circles is, therefore, that Mr Netanyahu will not hold snap elections and continue in office until the end of his current electoral mandate in October 2026.
The problem for the Israeli Premier is that, soon enough, whatever he claims to have achieved by striking Iran will be forgotten by his electorate.
Ordinary Israelis are beginning to cast doubt on their country's legendary missile defence systems.
While these worked well, intercepting around 90 per cent of all incoming Iranian rockets and drones, the missiles that got through inflicted quite a bit of damage in Israeli cities, and shattered many illusions about Israel's supposedly impregnable defences.
Meanwhile, Iran's nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami has announced that his country will soon restart its nuclear programme.
In the Middle East, a ceasefire remains a very relative and perishable concept.
Jonathan Eyal is based in London and Brussels and writes on global political and security matters.
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A changed Middle East balance of power
A changed Middle East balance of power

Business Times

time19 minutes ago

  • Business Times

A changed Middle East balance of power

ON OCT 6, 2023, it seemed as though the United States and its allies were about to win the day in the Middle East and that the anti-American Iran regime was facing a major geo-strategic blow. The expectation was that Saudi Arabia and Israel, America's two partners in the region and long-time foes of the Islamic Republic, were about to normalise diplomatic relations. The conventional wisdom in Washington and Middle Eastern capitals at that time was that the ensuing Saudi-Israeli detente would create the conditions for the formation of a new regional bloc that would include the pro-Western moderate Arab states and Israel. If that would have happened, the new bloc with US support would be able to contain Teheran and place constraints on its expansionist policies in the region as well as its plans to acquire military nuclear capability. But on Oct 7, one of Iran's regional partners, the Gaza-based Islamist Hamas, launched an attack on Israel and delivered a blow to the American strategy. Teheran had given its proxy the green light whose goal was to sabotage the Saudi-Israel detente. The attack, including the taking of Israeli hostages by Hamas, placed Israel on the defensive and led it to launch a counter-attack that has evolved into the major war between the Israelis and the forces of the Islamist Hamas. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Joining Hamas in the attack on Israel from the north was another member of the pro-Iran regional axis – the Shiite group Hezbollah – that bombed Israeli targets, joined later on by Shiite militias in Iraq and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The pro-Iran axis seemed to be on the move, changing the regional balance of power in favour of Teheran and sabotaging the plans to normalise diplomatic relations between Riyadh and Jerusalem. But the Israeli military response proved to be more than effective. With American support, the Israelis delivered a blow to Hamas, devastated its centres of power in Gaza and killed some of its top leaders. Similarly, Israel struck the pro-Iran Hezbollah in Lebanon, paralysed its military operations there, and like in the case of Hamas, killed its major leaders. The 'ring of fire' that Iran placed around Israel was collapsing. Things had gotten worse for the Iranians when another of their key allies, Syria's leader Bashar al Assad, was overthrown from power in December 2024. Another of Iran's surrogates ended up hitting the dust. The election of Donald Trump as US president was another piece of bad news for the Iranians. During his first term in office, President Trump embraced a pro-Israel agenda, abrogated the nuclear deal with the Iranians, and killed one of their military leaders, Qasem Soleimani. Yet, President Trump expressed a willingness to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran with the goal of ending its military nuclear build-up, including ending the enrichment of uranium. The Iranians calculated that post-Iraq war, the Americans would hesitate to get embroiled in yet another battle in the Middle East and would prefer to reach a diplomatic compromise with Iran. But it seemed that the negotiations with Iran were stalling, with Trump insisting that under no condition would he allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear bomb. For all practical matters, the US president was giving Iran an ultimatum and a deadline to give up its uranium enrichment programme or else. Meanwhile, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warning that based on Israeli intelligence, Iran was continuing to enrich its uranium and could acquire military nuclear capability within a short time. And Netanyahu, arguing that Israel needed to prevent Iran from going nuclear, launched a massive attack against the Iranians on June 13, 2025. His move amounted to a huge military and diplomatic bet. First, that the Israeli military operations would succeed in destroying Iran's major nuclear sites. And secondly, that the Americans would give Israel the green light to launch the attack. Netanyahu seemed to have won the two bets. The Israeli military operation was swift and overwhelming, and President Trump okayed the Israeli attack. In fact, the president, impressed by the Israeli military wins, was swept away in the momentum of victories, providing the Israelis with an opportunity to achieve their goal of getting the Americans to join them in the military operation in Iran. Seen in this light, Trump's decision to order a US military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities marked a clear display of American-Israeli military cooperation against Iran. He made the decision despite the major risks abroad and at home, where his political coalition was divided over the wisdom of entangling the US in another Middle East war, including the possibility of an Iranian military retaliation, which among other things could have led to a surge in the price of oil. Iran did fire 14 ballistic missiles at US troops in Qatar on Monday and announced that it destroyed the American base in retaliation for the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. But the American base was already evacuated and in fact, Iran gave advance notice that the attacks were coming. President Trump mocked it as 'a very weak response', adding that Iran 'had gotten it all out of their 'system' '. Which they probably did. As a show of Iranian power or resolve, the attack failed, with Iran strongly signalling that it didn't want to fight the US, recognising that the Iranian regime risks its own survival. And after Israel aggressively targeted Iran's missile launchers and the regime's institutions, the Iranians have agreed to a ceasefire deal with the Israelis. Trump announced that Israel and Iran and Israel had agreed to a 'Complete and Total CEASEFIRE' within 24 hours and end what he called the '12-day war'. He now says that he wants 'Peace and Harmony', not a ground invasion or occupation of Iran. The bottom line is that Iran has lost its nuclear enrichment and weaponisation facilities, its leading military chiefs and nuclear scientists, much of its missile production and most of its regional proxies. The end result is the emergence of a new balance of power in the Middle East secured by an American-Israeli military and diplomatic partnership. Washington is now in a position to resuscitate the plan for normalising the Saudi and Israeli relationship, and forming an Arab-Israeli strategic bloc, and in the process to resolve the Palestinian problem and to establish an independent Palestinian state that would live side-by-side with Israel. Would the new balance of power survive? Much would depend on the Iranian and Israeli conduct and the ability of the US to secure the current ceasefire and ensure that neither Teheran nor Jerusalem would violate it. And any stable balance of power would probably require the US to put pressure on its partner, Israel, to end the war in Gaza and accept the idea of Palestinian self-determination.

Nato summit commits to higher spending and collective defence
Nato summit commits to higher spending and collective defence

Business Times

time34 minutes ago

  • Business Times

Nato summit commits to higher spending and collective defence

[THE HAGUE] Nato leaders on Wednesday (Jun 25) backed a big increase in defence spending and restated their commitment to defend each other from attack after a brief summit tailor-made for US President Donald Trump. In a short statement, Nato endorsed a higher defence spending goal of 5 per cent of GDP by 2035 – a response to a demand by Trump and to Europeans' fears that Russia poses a growing threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. '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,' the statement said, after Trump had sparked concern on Tuesday by saying there were 'numerous definitions' of the clause. But just before the summit opened, Trump had said of fellow Nato members: 'We're with them all the way.' The 32-nation alliance for its part heeded a call by Trump for other countries to step up their spending on defence to reduce Nato's reliance on the US. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged that it was not easy for European countries and Canada to find the extra money, but said it was vital to do so. 'There is absolute conviction with my colleagues at the table that, given this threat from the Russians, given the international security situation, there is no alternative,' the former Dutch prime minister told reporters in his home city of The Hague. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up 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 2 per cent of GDP, although it will be measured differently. Countries would 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 cybersecurity, protecting pipelines and adapting roads and bridges to handle heavy military vehicles. All Nato members have backed a statement enshrining the target, although Spain declared it does not need to meet the goal and can meet its commitments by spending much less. Rutte disputes that but accepted a diplomatic fudge with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez as part of his efforts to give Trump a diplomatic victory and make the summit go smoothly. Spain said on Wednesday that it did not expect its stance to have any repercussions. Rutte has kept the summit and its final statement short and focused on the spending pledge to try to avert any friction with Trump. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had to settle for attending the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening rather than the main meeting on Wednesday, although he was set to meet Trump separately. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban diluted the display of unity when he told reporters that Nato had no business in Ukraine and that Russia was not strong enough to represent a real threat to Nato. The Kremlin has accused Nato of being on a path of rampant militarisation and portraying Russia as a 'fiend of hell' in order to justify its big increase in defence spending. REUTERS

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store