The ceasefire between Israel and Iran is already showing signs of strain – and has triggered frustration, and a televised expletive, from United States President Donald Trump, who accused Israel of undermining the deal just hours after its announcement.
The ceasefire, brokered by the US and Qatar, came into effect late Monday following days of intensive missile barrages between the two foes. Israel’s last wave of strikes targeted Iranian military infrastructure near Isfahan, prompting retaliatory drone launches by Tehran.
Iran violated the ceasefire, “but Israel violated it too”, Trump told reporters on the White House’s South Lawn on Tuesday as he departed for the NATO summit.
“So I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning.”
“I’ve got to get Israel to calm down,” he said. “Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before.”
As he prepared to head to a NATO summit in The Hague in the Netherlands, Trump’s anger flared on the White House Lawn: “We have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.”
A day earlier, Trump boasted on his Truth Social app that “the Ceasefire is in effect!”
“ISRAEL is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave’ to Iran. Nobody will be hurt,” Trump wrote.
Trump’s unusually public display of anger at Israel saw the US leader apparently trying to force his ally to call off warplanes in real time on Tuesday.
Earlier the same morning, he had posted on Truth Social: “ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS” – without it being clear which bombs he was referring to.
“IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to quickly accede, with his office saying in a statement on Tuesday that Israel still carried out one more attack near Tehran after Trump’s appeal, but is refraining from “further strikes”.
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz had said earlier on Tuesday that he had ordered the military to mount new strikes on targets in Tehran in response to what he claimed were Iranian missiles fired in a “blatant violation” of the ceasefire.
Iran denied launching any missiles and said Israel’s attacks had continued for an hour and a half beyond the time the ceasefire was meant to start.
For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that his country would not fire at Israel if it was not fired upon, but that a “final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later”.
Despite the rocky start, Trump voiced support for the ceasefire itself, clarifying he is not seeking regime change in Iran, after some mixed messaging in recent days, and insisting that the ceasefire remains in effect.
If it holds, the truce would be a big political win for Trump in the wake of his risky gamble to send US bombers over the weekend to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran that Israel and the United States claim were being used to build an atomic bomb in secret.
US intelligence and the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog had previously recorded no indication Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said Iranian officials appeared to welcome Trump’s remarks, viewing them as a potential opening for diplomatic engagement.
“It might give the impression that Trump is serious about this ceasefire,” Hashem said.
In Washington, Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle, said Trump is feeling “quite annoyed” at and perhaps “betrayed” by Netanyahu violating the ceasefire.
“He was angry with both Israel and Iran. But you could really tell some of the extra anger there, the extra fury was aimed at Israel,” Lavelle said.
The US leader had said the truce would be a phased 24-hour process beginning at about 04:00 GMT Tuesday, with Iran unilaterally halting all operations first. He said Israel would follow suit 12 hours later.
Israel has been bombing Iran in an offensive that began June 13. The US joined the attack with a mission starting overnight Friday to Saturday against the deeply-buried and hard-to-access Fordow complex and two other sites.
In Donald Trump’s 2024 election campaign, he and many of his supporters spoke out against American resources and lives being wasted in conflicts around the world. Ending the United States’ “forever wars” was a major slogan.
But on February 1, a mere 10 days after being inaugurated for a second time, President Trump announced that the US had carried out air strikes targeting senior leadership of ISIL (ISIS) in Somalia. His post on X read, “These killers, who we found hiding in caves, threatened the United States.” This marked Trump’s first military action overseas, but it wouldn’t be his last.
Israel has been armed and supported by the US since then, and it has launched attacks on Yemen and even attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities. At the same time, in the Horn of Africa, US strikes have more than “doubled” since last year, according to US Africa Command (AFRICOM).
According to the think tank New America, which uses AFRICOM data to track strikes in Somalia, at least 43 air strikes were carried out in the continent in 2025. More than half of those, which are conducted in coordination with Somalia’s federal government, targeted IS-Somalia, the ISIL affiliate in northeast Puntland state, while the remainder targeted al-Shabab.
According to US officials, the rise in US air strikes against IS-Somalia is a result of growing concerns that the organization has become a hub for regional and global ISIL affiliates in terms of funding and attacks.
At the same time, experts also note the recent worrying gains being made by al-Shabab in Somalia.
But why is this a conflict that the “Make America Great Again” Trump administration is increasingly involved in, especially given how much controversy, disaster, and failure have plagued US policy in Somalia over the years?
A June 2010 file photo shows a US Predator unmanned drone armed with a missile that has been used against targets from Afghanistan to Somalia]File: Massoud Hossaini/AP Photo]
American intervention in Somalia: a complete failure?
“Ever since Black Hawk Down, Somalia was a no-go zone for the US”, said Abukar Arman, a Somali analyst and former special envoy to the US, referring to the failed 1993 US military intervention in Somalia during which 18 US troops and thousands of Somali civilians were killed.
“The situation changed after September 11 when Somalia emerged as one of the main locations for the so-called GWOT]global war on terror.” That political facade has three objectives: It justifies US sustained lethal drone attacks in the public psyche, it enables the US to guard its geopolitical interests in the Horn of Africa,]and] it enables American predatory capitalists to engage in economic exploitation”, Arman told Al Jazeera.
In its so-called “war on terror,” Somalia became the first country on the African continent to suffer an airstrike in the wake of September 11. In the decades that followed, US aerial bombardment of the country has not only persisted but intensified.
More than 50 US air strikes on Somalia were carried out during the combined 16 years of former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, according to New America, while a staggering 219 were carried out in Trump’s first term. With dozens more strikes just five months into his second term, analysts say if it continues at this rate, Trump is sure to surpass the 51 strikes the Biden administration conducted during its entire four years in office.
According to Jethro Norman, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, Trump has created the ideal setting for a remotely projecting US power capabilities in Somalia because it combines high firepower, minimal oversight, and minimal domestic political risk.
“By loosening Obama-era restrictions, he enabled a surge in preemptive strikes with minimal vetting or accountability. The logic was theatrical, not just strategic; it was a tactic to show toughness against previous governments and make claims that counterterrorism “wins” without getting stale,” Norman told Al Jazeera.
“So, what you see now is a spike in drone activity, but without any corresponding investment in long-term peacebuilding or governance support”, he explained.
Norman also cited the ongoing infighting between the Trump White House and Somalia regarding US policy direction.
“There were also competing camps within his]Trump’s] administration. Some pressed for kinetic engagement in Yemen and Somalia, while others argued that great-power rivalry with China was a distraction from counterterrorism.
” That policy push and pull]between spectacle and strategy] helps explain why air strikes surged even as Trump talked about ending forever wars, “he said.
In Bari, Puntland region of Somalia, in January 2025, a man sits beside the wreckages of burned military vehicles.
Al-Shabab gains
According to some analysts, al-Shabab’s unprecedented counteroffensive this year may be a contributing factor to the rise in US strikes. In it, the armed group reversed most of the Somali government’s territorial gains and seized , dozens of towns and villages in the Middle Shabelle region of the semi-autonomous Hirshabelle state – the home base of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.
Further complicating matters is that al-Shabab was able to advance on the capital and establish checkpoints along Mogadishu’s main thoroughfares during this counteroffensive. This shows not only the deep structural weakness within the Somali security forces but also the resilience of the armed group as they inched closer to the seat of power in Mogadishu, experts say.
According to David Sterman, the deputy director of New America’s Future Security program, “These recent US strikes] seem to relate more to the conditions on the battlefield,” and particularly the perceived threat from an al-Shabab offensive, which has partially revers the gains of earlier Somali government offensives.
” There may also be other factors, including a greater interest in targeting senior al-Shabab leaders, “he added.
Some claim that the Trump administration’s bombing campaign will only give access to the same armed organizations it claims to be fighting.
” The current drone diplomacy would continue to help al-Shabab. These attacks also kill people and livestock in civilian attacks. Ensuing grievances are utilised by armed groups that take advantage of these sentiments, “said Arman, the Somali analyst, who also noted a” lack of a comprehensive US-Somalia policy that is based on a strategic partnership that keeps the interest of both countries at heart”.
He continued, citing drones and military might, “It is foolish to think that all problems could be resolved with a hammer.”
Civilian deaths, ‘ lack of accountability ‘
Rights organizations and media outlets reported numerous civilian casualties from US airstrikes in Somalia during Trump’s first term in office. This was further compounded when AFRICOM admitted that civilians died in strikes it carried out.
Amnesty International claimed that the US had “could commit” possible war crimes” in Somalia as a result of its drone war, which reached its pinnacle in 2019. None of the victims of US drone strikes were ever compensated despite calls for accountability by rights groups and US lawmakers.
The “consistent lack of accountability for civilian victims of US air strikes,” especially under the previous Trump administration, speaks volumes. It reveals a profound lack of transparency that is deeply concerning, “said Eva Buzo, the executive director of Victims Advocacy International,  , an organisation seeking accountability for victims of human rights abuses in conflict zones across the globe.
She said that the US acknowledges the harm to civilians and has allocated funds, but it continues to ignore these crucial payments. She added that a willingness to “genuinely communicate with impacted communities” is required to better understand the real effects of drone strikes on people’s lives and what can be done tangibly to acknowledge this impact.
Meanwhile, adding to the complexity in the battle space in Somalia is that groups like al-Shabab often live and operate among the civilian population. This conceals casualties, but it also means that those at war with armed groups can’t often distinguish between fighters and civilians when striking targets.
US strikes often rely on patchy human intelligence in the rural countryside where al-Shabab is most present and where clan rivalries, informal economies and shifting loyalties are all factors that tend to be overlooked by the US. According to experts, this makes it more difficult to target accurately and makes it more difficult to harm non-combatants.
While there isn’t an official death toll from US strikes, the years of attacks are believed to have killed anywhere from 33 to 167 civilians in Somalia, according to separate tallies by New America and the nonprofit conflict watchdog, Airwars.
According to Norman of the Danish Institute, these civilian deaths caused by US airstrikes undermine the US’s standing in the area and feed into the myth that armed groups like al-Shabab thrive on foreign hostilities and Somali betrayal.
” These incidents don’t just cause resentment, they offer propaganda gold. Al-Shabab exploits the aftermath when civilians are killed or even forced to flee. They move quickly to frame themselves as defenders of Somali lives and sovereignty against a foreign aggressor and a weak federal government, “he said.
Drone strikes without accountability can actually help the insurgencies that they are trying to eradicate prosper, he continued.
A general view shows the scene of an explosion by a suspected member of al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab, at a shop selling tea near a security checkpoint on a road leading to the parliament and the president’s office, in Mogadishu, Somalia, in September 2023]File: Feisal Omar/Reuters]
Adding more fuel to the fire
After nearly two decades of US aerial bombardment, many analysts agree that air strikes alone cannot defeat an armed movement embedded in the fabric of Somali society, its social networks and those who thrive off consecutive foreign interventions. This presents challenges for taming these armed groups, let alone bringing them under control.
” There are interesting parallels to Afghanistan, local forces struggle to hold territory, US strikes fill the vacuum temporarily, but the long-term trajectory remains bleak. “Airpower can suppress, but it cannot transform,” Norman said.
” That gap between US rhetoric and Somali reality is precisely where al-Shabab thrives. The organization actively manipulates these situations, claiming to be the only actor who will fight for the lives of Somalis.
“In this sense, the loss of legitimacy is not abstract, it shapes local decisions, fuels recruitment, and weakens prospects for genuine partnership between Somali civilians and international actors”.
Analysts predict that the Trump administration’s continued aerial bombardment of Somalia will only serve as fuel for the conflict because it will grant support to the same foe it claims to be fighting. At the same time, they say, the cost of drones and missiles to fight a boogeyman halfway across the globe is a waste of US taxpayer money.
The chances of a military intervention in Somalia are slim, according to experts on US military and counterterrorism policies.
“It is unlikely that the US and its Somali partners can fully eliminate al-Shabab given its demonstration of resilience over time, and doing so would require a different approach than what these strikes appear to be. The New America deputy director, Sterman, said IS-Somalia does not possess quite the same level of resilience.
“There is, of course, the question of what defeat and destruction actually means for a non-state group”, he noted.
Despite that, US objectives are likely narrower than those of these groups’ defeat or destruction, with particular attention being placed on either containment or the eradication of particular capabilities or network connections.
For the annual North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit, a who’s-who of the world’s leaders are expected to approve significant increases in defense spending in response to American pressure.
In response to the growing global instability and the Middle East’s ongoing conflicts, the two-day NATO meeting will begin in The Hague on Tuesday. A resolution to significantly increase defense spending across the 32 member states is at the top of the agenda. Donald Trump, president of the United States, has made some sharp criticism of his administration, claiming that the country carries too much military burden.
Trump has urged NATO allies to increase their defense spending from the current 2 percent target to 5 percent of GDP. He has threatened to leave the alliance and has questioned whether it should support nations that don’t meet the spending goals.
Prior to the summit’s scheduled start time on Tuesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters in The Hague that NATO members would approve “historic new spending targets.”
She referred to it as a “once-in-a-generation tectonic shift” and said, “The security architecture that we have relied on for decades cannot no longer be taken for granted.”
Europe has taken action recently that “seen unthinkable a year ago,” she said. The “Europe of defense has finally awakened.”
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte emphasized the US’s “total commitment” to the alliance ahead of the summit, but he also noted that it was anticipated to see a rise in defense spending.
US pressure
At a meeting in Brussels earlier this month, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued an ultimatum to NATO defense ministers, stating that the commitment to 5% spending “must be completed by the summit at The Hague.”
In response to the pressure, Rutte will request from the summit members to approve new quotas of 5 percent of GDP for their defense budgets by 2032, with the remaining 3 percent going toward “soft spending” on infrastructure and cybersecurity, and the remaining 5% going toward “soft spending.”
NATO leaders agreed to increase defense spending targets from 1.5% to 2.5% of GDP in response to Russia’s war against Ukraine in 2023. Only 22 of the 32 alliance members, however, completed the revised goals.
While some nations, like Spain, have criticized the most recent proposed hike as unfeigned, other members have already made plans to significantly increase military spending in response to a changing security environment.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated in a significant foreign policy statement on Tuesday that Germany would increase spending to “Europe’s strongest conventional army” rather than “favor” Washington in response to the threat posed by Russia.
He said, “We must be concerned that Russia wants to keep fighting outside of Ukraine.”
No one should dare to attack us because we must unite to be so strong.
Kremlin: NATO was “created for conflict.”
The leaders of allied nations, including Japan, New Zealand, and Ukraine, will also be present at the summit along with the leaders of all 32 of the transatlantic alliance’s members.
The Kremlin cited Kyiv’s desire to join NATO as one of the reasons it attacked Ukraine in 2022 despite not being a member of the alliance.
Moscow, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, had no intention of attacking NATO on Tuesday, but that it was a “waste effort” to assure the alliance because it was determined to demonize Russia as a “fiend of hell.”
According to Peskov, the Reuters news agency, “It is an alliance made for confrontation.”
The Warsaw Pact, an alliance of communist-occupied eastern bloc countries established in 1955 as a counterbalance to NATO, was presided over by the Soviet Union. At the conclusion of the Cold War, it disintegrated in 1991. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, has set out to restore Moscow’s standing as a force in the face of NATO’s alleged encroachment on its borders and security.
This week, the United States’ military involvement in the Middle East grew once more after its warplanes bombed at least three of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Seven B-2 stealth bombers, each worth about $2.1 billion, dropped at least 14 million-dollar bunker-buster bombs on Fordow and Natanz, according to a briefing from US General Dan Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
More than 125 US aircraft, including bombers, fighters, tankers, surveillance aircraft, and support crews, all spent hundreds of millions of dollars on deployment and operation.
More than any other country in the world, including China, spends almost seven times as much on its military as Russia does, compared to the next nine combined.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US spent $997 billion on its military in 2024, which accounts for 37% of all military expenditures worldwide.
US-led wars have a high human cost.
About 940, 000 people have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and other post-9/11 conflict areas as a result of US-led wars since 2001, according to an analysis from Brown University’s Watson Institute of International &, Public Affairs.
In addition to indirect deaths, those that result from a lack of access to food, medicine, or war-related diseases, are not included. The total death toll, including direct and indirect deaths, is estimated to be between 4.5 and 4.7 million, up from 3.6 to 3.8 million, according to estimates.
At least 30 000 US military personnel, contractors, and allies were killed in addition during that time. This includes at least 7, 052 soldiers, 8, 189 contractors, and 14, 874 allied troops.
Half a million people were killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In response to the attacks of September 11 and the removal of the Taliban from power, the Afghan war broke out on October 7, 2001. Less than two years later, on March 20, 2003, the US and its allies launched the Iraqi war in an effort to end Saddam Hussein’s alleged WMDs and oust him from power. No WMD stockpiles were ever discovered, though.
The Afghanistan conflict, which lasted almost 20 years, led to an estimated 243 000 direct deaths, including those who were killed in Pakistan’s bordering regions, marking the longest military engagement in US history. During the war, about 315, 000 people died directly in Iraq.
According to the Watson Institute, at least 558, 000 direct deaths occurred between October 2001 and August 2021.
US-led wars have an economic cost.
The US has reportedly provided $ 5.8 trillion in funding its more than 20-decade war.
This includes $ 2.1 trillion in interest payments on loans made to pay for the war, $ 1.1 trillion in loans made by Homeland Security, $ 884 billion to increase the DOD base budget, $ 465 billion for veterans’ medical care, and $ 1.2 trillion in interest payments made on loans taken out of loans to fund the war.
US military spending continues to be a source of revenue
Over the next 30 years, the US is anticipated to spend at least $2.2 trillion on obligations relating to veterans’ care in addition to the $ 5.8 trillion already spent.
Since 2001, US wars have cost the country an estimated $8 trillion.
US funding of Gaza’s genocide by Israel
According to Brown University’s Watson Institute, Israel has consistently been the largest recipient of US foreign aid, having received at least $251.2 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1959. A 10-year memorandum of understanding that runs through 2028 has been a commitment by the US to give Israel $3.8 billion annually since 2016. The majority of it is designated as foreign military funding.
However, the US provided an additional $ 17.9 billion in military aid to Israel in the year following the attacks in October 2023, making that figure the highest annual total ever. This includes $ 4. 5 billion in military financing, $ 4. 5 billion for missile defense, and $ 4. 5 billion for restocking US stocks with weapons for Israel.
The human cost of Gaza’s genocide by Israel
As of June 24, 2025, the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza reported the most recent casualty figures:
At least 56 people confirmed dead, 077.
Injured: at least 131, 848
Since March 18 Israel broke the ceasefire:
At least 5 of 759 people confirmed dead.
Injured: at least 19, 807
Another ten thousand people are feared to be buried beneath the rubble.
Two Palestinians who fled Gaza during the genocide share their resurrected stories on The Stream today.
The decision to stay and risk losing their homes and loved ones is agonizing for the Palestinians who have managed to leave. Many more have no escape plan and are desperate to escape. What happens to those who actually make it out, then? How do they continue to live after such traumatic experiences while worrying about the people and families they have lost as the war heats up? Do they ever actually heal, though?
They are unable to identify their true purpose. Donald Trump, the US president, criticized Israel-Iran ceasefire violations in an extraordinary four-letter outburst. Trump said he would make an effort to stop further planned attacks by directing the bulk of his anger toward Israel.
