Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Fraying of the Trump-Netanyahu AllianceThe latest flare-up in hostilities between Israel and Iran has exposed what some observers say is the most significant crack yet in the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and United States President Donald Trump, revealing increasingly divergent interests between the two leaders.The pair once appeared politically inseparable, with Netanyahu describing Trump as the "greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House." Trump returned the praise. During a 2025 appearance in Israel, he joked, "He's not easy – not the easiest guy to deal with – but that's what makes him great."Trump is no longer joking. Last week, he reportedly called Netanyahu "f***ing crazy" during a phone call, accused him of undermining US diplomacy and warned that Israel's military escalation risked derailing peace talks with Iran.The tensions became apparent when Iran launched a volley of missiles towards northern Israel on Sunday, following an Israeli strike in Beirut's southern suburbs on June 7 – despite US assurances just days before that this would not happen. The missile attack, the first by Iran since a fragile, Pakistan-brokered ceasefire reached two months earlier between the US and Iran, threatened to unravel months of negotiations."He will have no choice," Trump told the Financial Times when asked about the likelihood of Netanyahu approving a possible peace agreement with Iran. "I call the shots. I call all the shots. He doesn't call the shots."Diverging Political Interests in the Iran ConflictUltimately, observers say, the two leaders are driven by their own political interests which are on a collision course. In the US, the war with Iran is deeply unpopular, so Trump needs to reach a deal with Iran to end the war. Netanyahu, on the other hand, could benefit politically at home if it were to continue.In fact, as soon as Trump and Netanyahu jointly launched missile strikes on Iran at the end of February, their objectives began to drift apart.Israel's leadership had suggested the conflict could deliver a rapid victory, potentially weakening or even toppling Iran's government while crippling its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.But Yossi Mekelberg, a Middle East analyst at Chatham House, said any such assumptions underpinning the campaign quickly collapsed. "The war didn't go the way they wanted it to go," he told Al Jazeera."The biggest failure was assuming it would be nice and quick and would achieve its objectives. They thought it would bring regime change and that, by extension, it would end Iran's nuclear programme and ballistic missile programme. Obviously, that was a complete failure."The conflict also created economic consequences that threatened Trump's own domestic political interests. When Iran effectively closed off the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime, global energy markets were rattled and oil prices surged.The Strategic and Economic CalculusMekelberg said Washington had appeared unprepared for a scenario many analysts had long warned was inevitable. "The United States didn't appear to think strategically about how it would keep the Strait of Hormuz open. It shows an inability to think strategically in this administration."With fuel prices soaring and Democrats eyeing gains in November's mid-term congressional elections, Trump has a strong incentive to secure a quick deal, and has little appetite for a prolonged Middle East crisis while preparing to host football's World Cup.Ultimately, despite the longstanding relationship between Israel and the US, Trump's relationship with Netanyahu remains fundamentally transactional, said Mekelberg."Trump is egotistical and self-absorbed," he said. "It's a transactional relationship. It depends on how good the transaction is, and when it doesn't work for you – as we see with Trump, this is his method. 'I'm your friend' until it no longer serves his interests."But, on a deeper level, there is a serious issue, which is that they have unravelled the Middle East. Now, because their interests diverge, and because each side is pursuing its own interests, they clash in a very asymmetric way."US Military Aid and Diplomatic LeverageAs Israel becomes increasingly isolated internationally over its conduct in Gaza, the West Bank and across the region, the US remains its most important diplomatic protector and its main military supplier and financial backer. This has become increasingly important as Israel's traditional European allies have begun distancing themselves from Netanyahu's government.Washington provides Israel with at least $3.8bn annually under a 10-year military assistance agreement running from 2019 to 2028. That package includes $3.3bn through the Foreign Military Financing programme and another $500m for joint missile-defence programmes.An Al Jazeera investigation recently found that 42 percent of weapons entering Israel originated from the United States.Gideon Levy, the Israeli journalist and author, told Al Jazeera that dependence on the US leaves Netanyahu with little room to manoeuvre. "Israel is not in a position to say no to Donald Trump, and Netanyahu is not in a position to say no," Levy said. "Israeli dependence on the US right now has reached an unprecedented stage, and Israel cannot take on Iran without the United States."The reality on the ground is that whatever Trump tells Netanyahu, he will have to do exactly as Trump phrased it."Netanyahu's Domestic Political PredicamentTrump's push for a ceasefire collides with Netanyahu's domestic ambitions. The war with Iran has proved popular inside Israel, where public support for military action remains overwhelming.Levy noted that polling shows support for the attack on Iran stands at roughly 93 percent. "Traditionally in Israel, you can much easier get consensus for a major majority by launching another war, rather than any diplomatic agreement," Levy said.With elections due before the end of October, some analysts say continued confrontation would therefore serve Netanyahu's political interests. The problem is that Washington increasingly appears committed to pursuing a diplomatic settlement with Tehran.The negotiations between the US and Iran are taking place indirectly, via Pakistani mediators, but without Israeli participation at all. Reports suggest any future agreement would leave Iran's government intact while permitting a restricted but continuing nuclear programme.Tehran has also reportedly demanded that any deal prevent Israel from launching future military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Under such a deal, an Israeli strike on Beirut could risk provoking Iranian retaliation without guaranteed US backing – a scenario Netanyahu would not be happy about."Netanyahu is in a certain deadlock," Levy said. "The project of his life was Iran and the belief that Iran can be defeated by force. This was proven false in the last two rounds in Iran."The Future of US-Israel RelationsMany analysts doubt the apparent rift between Israel and the US represents any sort of meaningful shift in relations between the two.Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, and international adviser to the activist group Jewish Voice for Peace, argued that Trump's criticism had not been matched by action."The words could be significant if they were matched by actions," she told Al Jazeera. "What we see now are a set of words – 'You better be careful; you'll find yourself acting alone' – that are not backed up by actions."Bennis noted that Washington continues to provide billions of dollars in military assistance, to shield Israel from accountability at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and ICC, and to keep weapons flowing.She compared Trump's approach to that of former US President Joe Biden during the first stages of Israel's war on Gaza."The leadership would say, 'Please stop killing so many Palestinians,'" Bennis said, "while continuing to supply weapons and funding … The words just don't mean very much."

The Lead: A Deadly Attack That Remains UnexplainedOn June 8, 1967, at least 34 US sailors were killed and 171 others were wounded in an Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, a United States Navy technical research ship stationed in the Mediterranean Sea off Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. Israel claimed it was a case of mistaken identity, but survivors and researchers have disputed this version, lamenting that successive governments did little to bring out the truth behind one of the deadliest attacks on the US Navy by its closest ally.The Event Details: The Attack on the USS LibertyIsraeli air and naval forces bombarded the intelligence-gathering vessel in international waters near the Sinai Peninsula during the 1967 war, when Israel captured Egypt's Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank. The assault began when Israeli jets attacked the vessel, striking the ship's deck with anti-personnel weapons and armour-piercing bullets. This was followed by a devastating strike from Israeli torpedo boats that blew a massive hole in the ship's starboard side, instantly killing 25 men in the lower research spaces.The crew had been flying the US flag and had even exchanged waves with low-flying Israeli aircraft earlier that morning, making their identity clear. Israel has long maintained the strike was a tragic error, claiming exhausted pilots mistook the US naval vessel for an Egyptian warship.The Cover-Up Allegations: Classified Records and Congressional InactionNearly 60 years on, records related to the attack remain classified, survivors and advocates say. Richard Brooks, chief engineer on the vessel, told Al Jazeera in a 2015 interview that "it wasn't a tragic accident" but "a deliberate attack" where Israel "knew who we were" and "tried to sink us." A naval board of inquiry was hastily convened while the severely damaged ship was dry-docked in Malta, but the proceedings concluded swiftly.Ernie Gallo, president of the USS Liberty Survivors Group, dismissed Israel's "mistaken identity" excuse as a lie and accused the US government of complicity for accepting the false narrative. The US Congress never formally questioned the attack or formed a committee to investigate the tragedy.The Political Impact: Renewed Attention and Congressional ActionThis year, the attack has come under renewed attention after US Representative Thomas Massie announced he would deliver a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives to honour and memorialise the crew of the USS Liberty. Massie has described the incident as an "unprovoked attack by Israel" and noted that several survivors planned to attend his memorial speech as guests in the congressional gallery.The Historical Context: Israel's Espionage Against the United StatesIsrael shares close military and intelligence ties with the US, with Washington providing billions of dollars in military assistance for decades. The USS Liberty attack remains a dark chapter, but it is not the only instance of Israel taking aggressive action or conducting intelligence operations against the US. Recently, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) elevated the counterintelligence threat posed by Israel to its highest level of "critical."The warning follows reports of Israeli intelligence agencies intensifying efforts to collect information on US military personnel and government officials to intercept policy discussions. Other examples of Israeli espionage against the US include the covert installation of spyware on the mobile phones of US defence personnel operating inside Israel and the case of Jonathan Pollard, a US Navy civilian intelligence analyst arrested in 1985 for passing classified information to Israel.The Future Outlook: Demands for AccountabilityDespite decades passing since the attack, survivors and advocates continue to demand a full official inquiry into the USS Liberty incident. The renewed attention from Representative Massie and other officials suggests that the long-suppressed story may finally receive the congressional scrutiny that survivors have sought for nearly 60 years. As more information becomes available and political dynamics shift, the truth behind one of the most controversial incidents in US-Israel relations may finally come to light.

The Lead: Direct Exchange Marks Most Serious Escalation Since April CeasefireIsrael launched attacks across Iran overnight, with explosions reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Karaj and Isfahan, marking the most serious escalation between the two countries since a fragile ceasefire took hold in April.The attacks came hours after Iran fired a wave of missiles towards northern Israel, accusing Israel of repeatedly violating the ceasefire through its ongoing military operations in Lebanon – which Israel says are targeting the armed group Hezbollah, Tehran's closest ally in the country.On Monday, US President Donald Trump called on both sides to stop attacking each other. "Israel and Iran must immediately stop 'shooting'," he said in a brief post on his Truth Social platform. Analysts say a major disagreement between the US and Israel over how to handle talks with Iran may be emerging.The Event Details: Timeline of EscalationTensions have been building for days. On Sunday, Israel struck Beirut's southern suburbs, killing at least two people and wounding 20, despite another United States-led "ceasefire" announced jointly by Israel and Lebanon on June 4.Hours after those attacks, Iran launched missiles towards northern Israel in what Tehran described as retaliation for the Beirut attack. These were largely intercepted, according to reports, with debris falling as far away as Jordan and the West Bank en route to Israel.Israel responded with overnight attacks on central and western Iran, while Tehran has since launched a second wave of attacks. According to Israeli media outlet Haaretz, Iran has launched about 30 ballistic missiles in total since Sunday night.Missiles have also been launched from Yemen, with the Houthis claiming responsibility on Monday, while Hezbollah has remained engaged in repelling Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon.The Strategic Shift: Iran's Direct InterventionThis is the first direct Iranian missile attack on Israel since the Pakistan-brokered April 8 ceasefire was announced. It is also the first time Tehran has retaliated against Israeli attacks in Lebanon – which have been occurring near-daily since early March – by launching missiles directly from Iranian territory.The attack came after repeated warnings from Iran that an Israeli strike on Beirut's southern suburbs would trigger a response. This exchange further intertwines the Israel-Hezbollah conflict with ongoing US-Iran negotiations, as Tehran has repeatedly insisted that progress in talks with Washington depends on a genuine halt to Israeli military operations in Lebanon.Israeli troops now control roughly 2,000 square kilometres (770 square miles) of Lebanese land – nearly one-fifth of the country's territory. Since early March, more than 3,000 people have been killed in Lebanon, and more than one million have been displaced from their homes in the south.The Impact Analysis: US-Israel Relations TestedUS President Donald Trump insisted late on Sunday night that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would ultimately have to accept any agreement negotiated between Washington and Tehran because the US president "calls the shots"."He won't have any choice," Trump told the Financial Times in a telephone interview. "I call the shots. I call all the shots. He doesn't call the shots."But just hours after Trump's comments and US media reports suggesting Washington was urging restraint, Israel struck targets inside Iran. Whether the apparent gap between Washington and Israel reflects a genuine disagreement remains unclear.On Monday morning, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee claimed on X that Iran was not only aiming to "incinerate" Israel, but also the US. Some analysts say Israel's actions risk eroding Trump's authority in the region."By defying Trump, Israel has done more than challenge Iran's new equation; it has also undermined Trump's credibility," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.The Regional Implications: Lebanon Ceasefire in JeopardyThe conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which was at times considered a separate conflict to the US-Israel-Iran war, is at the centre of this latest regional escalation.Although a first US-brokered ceasefire was announced on April 16, Israeli forces have continued their invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon. This advance is Israel's deepest incursion into Lebanese territory in more than a quarter of a century.Israel has also continued periodic attacks on Beirut's southern suburbs, which it claims are a Hezbollah stronghold. More than 600 people have been killed in Lebanon since the ceasefire took effect.The Trump administration on June 3 announced that Israel and Lebanon had agreed to a new US-mediated ceasefire, which was immediately rejected by Hezbollah. The proposed arrangement called for Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani River, but made no corresponding commitment regarding an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.The Prediction: Path Forward Amid Regional TensionsThe conflict in Lebanon now appears firmly linked to the wider confrontation between Iran and the US-Israel. Israel's continued military operations in southern Lebanon, coupled with repeated attacks on Dahiyeh, have created what increasingly looks like a new regional red line."Tehran's decision to answer a strike on Lebanon with missiles launched from its own soil is the operative development here," said Dr Hamidreza Azizi, an Iranian foreign policy specialist at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs."That decision gives concrete form to Iranian FM Araghchi's earlier formulation that the ceasefire applies on all fronts, and that its violation on one front is a violation on all."The critical question now is whether the US will get directly involved. That appears unlikely for now, given Trump's repeated insistence that a broader ceasefire remains achievable and Washington's apparent desire to avoid another regional war."The gap between Washington's preference for restraint and Israel's preference for response is where a renewed escalation cycle would most likely begin," Azizi added.

The Pentagon's Critical Espionage AssessmentThe US defense department has reportedly raised its assessment of the espionage threat posed by Israel to the highest category of 'critical', according to media reports citing American intelligence and defense officials. This designation, the most serious in the Pentagon's internal assessment system, represents a significant shift in how Washington views intelligence activities from its close ally.The assessment, first published by NBC News and followed by The New York Times, comes at a time when Washington is pursuing diplomatic engagement with Iran, while its ally Israel is opposed to the talks aimed at ending the conflict now 100 days long.Divergent Approaches to Iran CrisisUS President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have publicly diverged in their approach to the war – Washington wants to extricate itself amid political pressure, while Israel is still pushing to topple the Iranian government. This divergence has created a complex diplomatic landscape where traditional alliances are being tested.The reported espionage activities appear focused on American officials involved in shaping Washington's approach towards Iran, including Trump envoy Steve Witkoff; the Pentagon's top policy official, Elbridge A Colby; and one of his deputies, Michael P DiMino IV. These officials have allegedly been targets of increased Israeli surveillance efforts.Historical Context of US-Israel Intelligence RelationsThis is not the first time Israel has been accused of espionage against the US – its closest ally and benefactor – with which it maintains extensive security and intelligence cooperation. The most famous example is the Jonathan Pollard affair, where a civilian intelligence analyst working for the US Navy was arrested in 1985 after passing large quantities of classified information to Israel.According to academic Andreas Kreig at King's College London, 'Israel has a particularly long track record of conducting intelligence operations inside the United States.' Over decades, Israel has sought to penetrate US policymaking circles through both formal and informal networks to gain insight into American strategic thinking.Official Responses and DenialsIsrael has strongly denied the allegations. According to NBC, the Israeli embassy in Washington stated it was 'completely false' that the country spies on US government officials or American institutions. 'Israel does not gather intelligence on American entities, let alone US government officials,' the spokesperson said.A White House official also reportedly dismissed the NBC report, calling it 'false and sourced to someone who doesn't have any knowledge of what's going on.' Despite these denials, the Pentagon's assessment represents a significant development in US-Israel relations.Strategic Implications for Middle East DiplomacyExperts suggest Israel's alleged espionage activities are driven by deep concerns about the trajectory of US negotiations with Iran. From the Israeli perspective, the recent conflict with Iran was effectively a joint US-Israeli war, yet the United States is now shaping the diplomatic endgame.According to Iran expert Negar Mortazavi, 'US interests and Israeli interests are no longer overlapping, they're divergent.' This divergence has created what some analysts describe as an unprecedented situation where Israel is conducting intelligence operations against its primary benefactor and military supporter.Future Outlook for US-Israel RelationsThe elevation of Israel's espionage threat to 'critical' level suggests that despite decades of close military and intelligence cooperation, fundamental differences in strategic objectives with Iran are creating significant friction between the allies.As the US continues to pursue diplomatic solutions to the Iran conflict while Israel maintains its military objectives, the intelligence relationship between the two countries faces an uncertain future. The reported espionage activities, if confirmed, could lead to a reassessment of the extensive security cooperation that has characterized US-Israel relations for decades.

Rubio's Shift on Netanyahu's Gaza Plan Senator Marco Rubio has taken a step back from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's proposed plan for Gaza, indicating a possible divergence in their views on the matter. The Context of the Plan Netanyahu's plan for Gaza has been a subject of international scrutiny, with many questioning its feasibility and impact on the region's stability. Rubio's Stance By distancing himself from the plan, Rubio may be signaling a cautious approach to the complex issue, potentially aligning with a more nuanced US policy towards the region. Implications for US-Israel Relations This development could have implications for the relationship between the US and Israel, particularly in the context of their historical alliance and shared interests in the Middle East. Future Developments As the situation in Gaza continues to evolve, it remains to be seen how Rubio's stance will influence US policy and whether it will lead to a more significant shift in the US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Lead: Trump's Public Rebuke of NetanyahuFormer US President Donald Trump has publicly rebuked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an unprecedented move that signals a significant cooling in their previously close relationship. The development comes at a critical time for both leaders and carries profound implications for Israeli politics, US-Israel relations, and the broader Middle East geopolitical landscape.The Event Details: Breaking Down Trump's CommentsDuring a recent interview, Trump expressed dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's handling of several key issues, including judicial reforms, relations with Arab neighbors, and the ongoing conflict with Hamas. This marks a stark departure from Trump's unwavering support for Netanyahu during his presidency, when the two leaders maintained a close alliance that significantly influenced US policy toward Israel and the Middle East.Trump criticized Netanyahu's judicial reform efforts as "divisive"The former president questioned Israel's military strategy in GazaTrump suggested Netanyahu was "losing support" among key alliesThe Impact Analysis: Shifting Alliances in Middle East PoliticsThe public rift between Trump and Netanyahu represents a significant shift in the political dynamics of the Middle East. Their relationship had been a cornerstone of US-Israel relations for years, with Trump moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal—all moves strongly supported by Netanyahu.This cooling of relations could potentially influence US policy toward Israel under a potential second Trump administration, as well as Netanyahu's domestic standing in Israel. The development also comes amid broader regional realignments, with some Arab states previously aligned with Trump now pursuing more independent foreign policies.The Prediction: Future Implications for US-Israel RelationsLooking ahead, the Trump-Netanyahu rift suggests a more complex future for US-Israel relations. If Trump returns to the presidency, his administration might adopt a more cautious approach toward Israel, potentially conditioning support on specific policy outcomes. For Netanyahu, the public rebuke from one of his most important international allies could embolden political opponents and complicate his efforts to maintain unity within his fragile coalition government.Long-term, this development may signal a recalibration of the special relationship between the US and Israel, with future administrations potentially taking a more balanced approach that considers broader regional implications and concerns from international partners.

The Shift in Democratic Voter Opinion A new poll from New York Times/Siena has found that nearly three-quarters of voters aligned with the Democratic Party oppose US military aid to Israel, up from 45 percent three years ago, as support for Israel continues to drop among US voters. Key Findings of the Poll Nearly half of Democratic voters said that their party was too supportive of Israel. 95 percent opposed the US-Israel war on Iran. 60 percent of Democratic voters said they were more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to Israel, while just 15 percent said they were more sympathetic to Israel. The Impact of Shifting Public Opinion The survey is the latest to underscore a shifting political landscape on Israel-Palestine in the United States, driven by anger over Israel's genocidal war on Gaza and aggressive military campaigns across the Middle East. While Israel has long been able to rely on the US for strong military, economic, and diplomatic support, Israel has seen its popularity plummet across numerous segments of US society, especially among Democrats and progressives, in recent years. The Future of US-Israel Relations Support for Israel among US voters is now largely concentrated among older voters. A Pew Research Center poll released in April found that 84 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans between the ages of 18-49 had an unfavourable view of Israel, compared with 76 percent and 24 percent, respectively, among those aged 50 and up. But shifting public opinion has yet to be reflected in policy change at the higher levels of the Democratic Party, which continues to be led by stalwart supporters of Israel such as House Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Leader Chuck Schumer.

The Current Situation The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed with a US naval blockade still in place. This has resulted in around 3,000 Iran-bound containers being stranded in Pakistan, facing rising costs and uncertain prospects due to shifting signals from Washington. Iran's Diplomatic Efforts Iran is actively pursuing diplomatic channels, engaging with countries such as Russia and Pakistan. This effort aims to revive or maintain dialogue that could potentially ease tensions or lead to a negotiated resolution. The Impact on US-Israel Relations The ongoing situation raises questions about the feasibility of talks to end the conflict between the US and Israel. With Iran pushing for diplomacy and the US maintaining its blockade, the international community watches closely for any signs of de-escalation or further conflict. The Future Outlook As Iran continues to push for diplomatic solutions and the US maintains its stance, the possibility of a US-Iran deal remains uncertain. The situation's fluidity suggests that developments could unfold rapidly, impacting not just the involved parties but also the broader geopolitical landscape.

Israel's ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, has taken a significant step towards diplomacy with Lebanon, holding a first-ever phone call with his Lebanese counterpart, Nada Hamadeh Moawad. This development marks a break from tradition, as Israel and Lebanon do not have formal diplomatic relations.The talks are set to take place as global pressure mounts on Israel to end its invasion of Lebanon, which has resulted in over 2,000 people killed and over one million people displaced. Leiter, a settlement activist and longtime figure in Israeli political circles, has been at the center of US-Israel relations.Leiter's background includes senior advisory roles in government and associations with far-right politics. His tenure as Israel's ambassador in Washington, DC, began in January 2025, replacing Michael Herzog. Netanyahu's office described Leiter as a 'talented diplomat' with a 'deep understanding of American culture and politics'.However, Leiter has drawn controversy during his time in public service, including over his past affiliations, ideological positions, and rhetoric during Israel's conflicts. He was involved with the Jewish Defense League (JDL) in his youth, a US-based far-right pro-Israel group later classified by US authorities as a 'terrorist' organization.The talks between Leiter and Moawad aim to address the ongoing conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Israel has carried out near-daily attacks on Lebanese territory since a ceasefire started in November 2024, violating the truce hundreds of times. The situation remains complex, with Hezbollah rejecting direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel.Analysts express skepticism about the success of the talks, stating they 'are designed to fail.' However, they also note that if there is a positive outcome, it will likely be due to US pressure on Israel. The Arab Peace Initiative, proposed in 2002, which offered recognition of Israel in exchange for a two-state solution, has been rejected by Israel.