Category World News

Has the US and Israel’s actions increased the likelihood that more nations will demand them?

On June 22, American warplanes crossed into Iranian airspace and dropped 14 massive bombs. The attack was not in response to a provocation; it came on the heels of illegal Israeli aggression that took the lives of 600 Iranians. This was a return to something familiar and well-practised: an empire bombing innocents across the orientalist abstraction called “the Middle East”. That night, US President Donald Trump, flanked by his vice president and two secretaries, told the world “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace”.

There is something chilling about how bombs are baptised with the language of diplomacy and how destruction is dressed in the garments of stability. To call that peace is not merely a misnomer; it is a criminal distortion. But what is peace in this world, if not submission to the West? And what is diplomacy, if not the insistence that the attacked plead with their attackers?

In the 12 days that Israel’s illegal assault on Iran lasted, images of Iranian children pulled from the wreckage remained absent from the front pages of Western media. In their place were lengthy features about Israelis hiding in fortified bunkers. Western media, fluent in the language of erasure, broadcasts only the victimhood that serves the war narrative.

And that is not just in its coverage of Iran. For 20 months now, the people of Gaza have been starved and incinerated. By the official count, more than 55,000 lives have been taken; realistic estimates put the number at hundreds of thousands. Every hospital in Gaza has been bombed. Most schools have been attacked and destroyed.

Leading human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have already declared that Israel is committing genocide, and yet, most Western media would not utter that word and would add elaborate caveats when someone does dare say it live on TV. Presenters and editors would do anything but recognise Israel’s unending violence in an active voice.

Despite detailed evidence of war crimes, the Israeli military has faced no media censure, no criticism or scrutiny. Its generals hold war meetings near civilian buildings, and yet, there are no media cries of Israelis being used as “human shields”. Israeli army and government officials are regularly caught lying or making genocidal statements, and yet, their words are still reported as the truth.

A recent study found that on the BBC, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, despite Palestinians dying at a rate of 34 to 1 compared with Israelis. Such bias is no exception, it is the rule for Western media.

Like Palestine, Iran is described in carefully chosen language. Iran is never framed as a nation, only as a regime. Iran is not a government, but a threat —not a people, but a problem. The word “Islamic” is affixed to it like a slur in every report. This is instrumental in quietly signalling that Muslim resistance to Western domination must be extinguished.

Iran does not possess nuclear weapons; Israel and the United States do. And yet only Iran is cast as an existential threat to world order. Because the problem is not what Iran holds, but what it refuses to surrender. It has survived coups, sanctions, assassinations, and sabotage. It has outlived every attempt to starve, coerce, or isolate it into submission. It is a state that, despite the violence hurled at it, has not yet been broken.

And so the myth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction becomes indispensable. It is the same myth that was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. For three decades, American headlines have whispered that Iran is just “weeks away” from the bomb, three decades of deadlines that never arrive, of predictions that never materialise.

But fear, even when unfounded, is useful. If you can keep people afraid, you can keep them quiet. Say “nuclear threat” often enough, and no one will think to ask about the children killed in the name of “keeping the world safe”.

This is the modus operandi of Western media: a media architecture not built to illuminate truth, but to manufacture permission for violence, to dress state aggression in technical language and animated graphics, to anaesthetise the public with euphemisms.

Time Magazine does not write about the crushed bones of innocents under the rubble in Tehran or Rafah, it writes about “The New Middle East” with a cover strikingly similar to the one it used to propagandise regime change in Iraq 22 years ago.

But this is not 2003. After decades of war, and livestreamed genocide, most Americans no longer buy into the old slogans and distortions. When Israel attacked Iran, a poll showed that only 16 percent of US respondents supported the US joining the war. After Trump ordered the air strikes, another poll confirmed this resistance to manufactured consent: only 36 percent of respondents supported the move, and only 32 percent supported continuing the bombardment

The failure to manufacture consent for war with Iran reveals a profound shift in the American consciousness. Americans remember the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis dead and an entire region in flames. They remember the lies about weapons of mass destruction and democracy and the result: the thousands of American soldiers dead and the tens of thousands maimed. They remember the humiliating retreat from Afghanistan after 20 years of war and the never-ending bloody entanglement in Iraq.

At home, Americans are told there is no money for housing, healthcare, or education, but there is always money for bombs, for foreign occupations, for further militarisation. More than 700,000 Americans are homeless, more than 40 million live under the official poverty line and more than 27 million have no health insurance. And yet, the US government maintains by far the highest defence budget in the world.

Americans know the precarity they face at home, but they are also increasingly aware of the impact US imperial adventurism has abroad. For 20 months now, they have watched a US-sponsored genocide broadcast live.

They have seen countless times on their phones bloodied Palestinian children pulled from rubble while mainstream media insists, this is Israeli self-defence. The old alchemy of dehumanising victims to excuse their murder has lost its power. The digital age has shattered the monopoly on narrative that once made distant wars feel abstract and necessary. Americans are now increasingly refusing to be moved by the familiar war drumbeat.

The growing fractures in public consent have not gone unnoticed in Washington. Trump, ever the opportunist, understands that the American public has no appetite for another war. And so, on June 24, he took to social media to announce, “the ceasefire is in effect”, telling Israel to “DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,” after the Israeli army continued to attack Iran.

Trump, like so many in the US and Israeli political elites, wants to call himself a peacemaker while waging war. To leaders like him, peace has come to mean something altogether different: the unimpeded freedom to commit genocide and other atrocities while the world watches on.

But they have failed to manufacture our consent. We know what peace is, and it does not come dressed in war. It is not dropped from the sky. Peace can only be achieved where there is freedom. And no matter how many times they strike, the people remain, from Palestine to Iran — unbroken, unbought, and unwilling to kneel to terror.

US President Donald Trump compared Israel and Iran fighting to children fighting in a schoolyard, which eventually had to be separated at his NATO pre-summit press conference in The Hague this week.

“Daddy has to sometimes use strong language”, Mark Rutte, NATO secretary-general, chimed in.

Trump responded, “No, he likes me,” when asked about the comment following the summit. He seems to like me, in my opinion. If he doesn’t I’ll let you know. I’ll hit him hard again, okay? He did it with great affection. Hey Daddy. My father is my dad.

A reel of Trump’s trip to the Netherlands, which was set to the music of Usher’s Hey Daddy, was created by the White House after Rutte was found to be flattering the US president.

Rutte’s flattery of Trump didn’t stop there. Rutte remarked to reporters before the NATO summit about how to deal with the Russia-Ukraine conflict: “When he came in office, he started the dialogue with President Putin, and I always thought that was crucial. And because the American president is the most powerful leader in the world, there is only one person who can actually break the deadlock, and that is the original leader.

But how sincere are world leaders ‘ statements about Donald Trump? Does flattery work and does it actually improve bilateral relations?

What has been the outcome of Trump’s successful handling?

Neither Rutte, nor any other European leader, engaged in any kind of dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a long time after the summer of 2022, the year of his invasion of Ukraine, believing it pointless.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz received harsh criticism for calling Vladimir Putin “defeatist” last November, and Robert Fico and Viktor Orban, the only leaders from Europe who visited the Kremlin during the war, both received harsh criticism for their open collaboration.

Many Europeans, however, paid Trump the same compliment as Rutte when they first visited the White House after he became president in January when he first started talking with Putin.

Keir Starmer, UK

The United Kingdom’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, expressed gratitude for changing the conversation to allow for a possible peace deal in February in the Oval Office.

A few rabbits were taken out of hats by Starmer. Knowing Trump’s fondness for the notion of hereditary power, he drew from his jacket a letter from King Charles III containing an invitation for an unprecedented second state visit to Windsor Castle.

Trump was suddenly speechless. Trump said, “Your country is fantastic, and it will be our honor to be there, thank you,” after gathering himself.

Starmer and Trump exchanged a few handshakes while speaking and Starmer repeatedly touched Trump’s shoulder in a sign of affection.

But did all this flattery actually work? Trump made the announcement to freeze military aid to Ukraine the following month, much to the chagrin of the UK, Nordic and Baltic nations, and the UK.

Giorgia Meloni, Italy

Trump has made it clear that he wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize by ending international conflicts, and both Starmer and Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, identified Ukraine as a pressing issue. He has so far been given credit for bringing an end to the “12-Day War” between Israel and Iran this month, preventing nuclear war after the India-Pakistan airstrikes on May 7, and overseeing a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Meloni, therefore, tried a similarly flattering approach to Trump. “We have been defending Ukraine’s freedom together.” We can create a just and lasting peace by working together. We support your efforts, Donald”, she said during her White House visit in April.

In her opening remarks, Meloni astutely addressed all of Trump’s hot-button issues, claiming that Italy had plans to invest $10 billion in the US economy, stop illegal immigration, and combat Fentanyl, a addictive painkiller that Trump has blamed on Canada and Mexico for allowing into the nation.

She even adapted the phrase “Make America Great Again” from Donald Trump to use in Europe. “The goal for me is to Make the West Great Again. I believe we can work together, Meloni told Trump in a beaming voice.

Trump’s state visit to Rome, which would cement Meloni’s position as a significant European leader, has not yet been done.

Mark Carney, Canada

Meanwhile, Mark Carney, the newly elected Canadian prime minister, last month, embraced Trump with both firmness and flattery. Trump’s territorial ambitions to annex Canada as the 51st US state were also blasted by him as a “transformational president” who had “sided with the American worker.” “It’s not for sale, won’t be for sale ever”, Mark Carney said.

Following Trump’s tussle with Justin Trudeau’s predecessor, Carney, relations appeared to have improved. Trump walked away from the 2018 G7 summit in Canada after calling him “very dishonest and weak.”

But Carney may not have had much effect at all. Trump threatened to impose additional tariffs on exports as a result of Canada’s new digital services tax on Friday as he ended trade talks with the country.

Which meetings have had a bad turnout?

Emmanuel Macron, France

Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron met in February, but there was little warmth.

Trump made lengthy, defensive, scripted remarks in an effort to defend his Ukraine policy, facing a leader who claims to be in charge of Europe’s strategic thinking.

Macron preached that peace in Ukraine must not mean surrender – a sentiment shared by many European leaders, but not expressed to Trump. Trump and Macron exchanged pleasantries, but not affectionate.

France is avoiding any capitulation of Trump in trade talks with the EU. Other members of the EU want to settle for an “asymmetric” trade deal that might benefit the US more than the EU, just to get it done.

In addition, it was obvious that no love between the two leaders had broken out after the G7 summit in Canada two weeks ago. Trump called Macron “publicity seeking” in a social media post on June 17.

Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was mauled by Trump and Vice President J D Vance on February 28, when he went to the White House to sign a mineral rights agreement he hoped would bring US military aid.

He and Vance had heated exchanges over direct contact with Russia regarding the head of Ukraine, and Vance attacked Zelenskyy for not showing the US enough “gratitude.”

You are stealing the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War Three”, said Trump.

Zelenskyy and Trump, however, made it seem as though they had a little slack when they impromptu met while attending Pope Francis’s funeral at the Vatican in April. The encounter was “very productive,” according to a White House spokesman.

Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa

When Trump played him a video of a rally by the South African opposition party in support of evicting white farmers, he ambushed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House last month. Trump claimed that South Africa was engaged in a “genocide” against white farmers.

Ramaphosa was visibly discomfited, but he patiently explained that under a parliamentary system, different viewpoints are expressed, which don’t represent government policy, and that South Africa is a violent country where most victims of violence are Black.

As a partner of South Africa, you are raising concerns that we are willing to address with you, Ramaphosa said, somewhat easing Trump.

Trump got so caught up in talking about a Jumbo Jet that Qatar had given him during his Middle Eastern tour. “I’m sorry I don’t have a plane to give you”, said Ramaphosa, as if to make a virtue of his absence of flattery.

Does Trump benefit from flattery?

Some experts think Trump might benefit from being made fun of. Some observers have argued it helps “to contain the American president’s impulses”.

However, flattery has little impact on actual US policy. Rutte and other NATO leaders failed to re-enter the Contact Group, where the US was assisting Ukraine with weapons.

“A summit dedicated to the sole aim of making Trump feel good is one with very limited aims indeed. In The Conversation, a UK publication, Andrew Gawthorpe, a lecturer in history and international studies at Leiden University in the Netherlands, all it does is push the difficult decisions forward for another day.

Those who have positive relations with Trump also don’t always end up with what they want. Starmer’s US-UK trade deal keeps tariffs in place for British companies exporting to the US, albeit lower ones than Trump had been threatening. Meloni is still anticipating Trump’s visitation of her.

On the other hand, respectable cohesion seems to work.

Trump has dropped his campaign to redraw US borders by absorbing Canada and Greenland, which is owned by Denmark. Carney’s firmness helped, as it lent a sense of finality. Trump acknowledged that Carney’s victory was “probably one of the greatest comebacks in the history of politics.” Maybe even greater than mine”.

Similar firmness has existed in Denmark. While Greenlanders don’t want to be colonized by Americans, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen asserts that US military installations already exist there.