**
In a significant development in US-Israeli relations, President Donald Trump publicly distanced himself from an Israeli attack on Iran’s South Pars gasfield, asserting that he was unaware of the operation beforehand. This revelation comes amid escalating tensions in the Gulf, with US allies expressing growing concerns over the implications of the strike.
A Divided Front
During a briefing in the Oval Office, Trump revealed his conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, following the strike that targeted Iran’s largest gas reserve. The attack has sparked outrage among US partners in the region, raising questions about the coherence of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
“I told him: ‘Don’t do that,’ and he won’t do that,” Trump stated, referencing his guidance to Netanyahu to avoid actions that could intensify the conflict. However, he acknowledged that Netanyahu might occasionally act independently, leading to friction between their administrations.
In a pointed rebuttal, Netanyahu asserted that Trump was not coerced into the conflict, dismissing suggestions that Israel had manipulated the US’s military stance. “Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do?” he quipped, reinforcing his position that decisions made were purely in Israel’s interest.
Rising Costs of War
The fallout from the Israeli strikes has broader implications for global energy markets. Analysts warn that renewed hostilities could unleash a series of retaliatory measures against Gulf infrastructure, including pipelines critical for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to Asian economies.
As of now, the US is facing mounting financial pressures, with the war on Iran reportedly costing $12.7 billion by the sixth day of conflict—an expenditure increasing at a staggering rate of half a billion dollars daily, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). This financial strain raises questions about sustainability and the direction of US military engagement in the region.
Potential Policy Shift on Iranian Oil
In a related development, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated that the Biden administration might consider lifting sanctions on Iranian oil currently stranded on tankers. This potential policy shift is aimed at stabilising skyrocketing prices following Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil supplies.
This announcement underscores the complexity of US-Iran relations and highlights the administration’s efforts to navigate the delicate balance between economic pressures and diplomatic strategies.
Legislative Updates and Broader Implications
In Washington, other significant political developments unfolded, including a Senate committee advancing the nomination of Markwayne Mullin to lead the Department of Homeland Security, amidst concerns regarding immigration enforcement policies under Trump’s administration. Additionally, a coalition of states has launched a lawsuit against the Trump administration over climate regulations, reflecting the contentious political landscape as Trump continues to dominate headlines.
Why it Matters
The recent Israeli strike on Iran’s gasfield and Trump’s subsequent denial of prior knowledge not only illustrate a fracture in US-Israeli cooperation but also signal the potential for escalating regional conflicts that could disrupt global energy markets. As the situation unfolds, the implications for international diplomacy, energy security, and US foreign policy will be closely scrutinised, with consequences that could ripple far beyond the Middle East.
