Follow us on social

Netanyahu Trump White House

Trump drops news bomblet: Direct US-Iran talks this Saturday

Meanwhile Israel's Netanyahu didn't get exactly what he wanted — for the president's tariffs to go away

Analysis | Middle East

During Monday’s last-minute meeting between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump announced that the U.S. will meet directly with Iran on April 12 to talk about a potential agreement over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Prior to this statement, Iran had declared that it was willing to engage in indirect talks with the U.S. about the possibility of renegotiating a nuclear deal. When reporters asked for more information on this previously undisclosed plans for a direct meeting, which Tehran had not yet confirmed, Trump merely reiterated that the talks would be at “almost the highest level” and “on Saturday.” Later reports indicated that U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff would be representing Washington in those talks.

Meanwhile, it was reported that Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, said they would be indirect talks in Oman, through a mediator.

“Everyone agrees that doing a deal is preferable to doing the obvious,” Trump said, referring obliquely to the possibility of direct American military action against Iran, a long-held goal of Netanyahu’s. Recent U.S. military deployments — most notably B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia and additional assets to the eastern Mediterranean — suggest contingency planning is well underway.

“I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious," he added. "And the obvious is not something that I want to be involved with, or, frankly, that Israel wants to be involved with, if they can avoid it."

Prior to the meeting, Israel had voiced concern that Washington might reengage Tehran without obtaining sufficient guarantees on curbing or ending its nuclear program or curtailing its regional activities, particularly in Syria and Lebanon. Netanyahu’s team reportedly pushed for closer coordination with the administration on potential red lines, while also discussing enhanced air-defense cooperation, including recent deliveries of THAAD and Patriot systems.

During the press conference, several journalists pressed Trump for more information on his administration’s protectionist trade policy, including the 17% tariffs the U.S. levied on Israeli goods. When asked if those might be reduced, Trump demurred, replying, “We help Israel a lot, we give them four billion dollars a year,” and acknowledged that the amount the U.S. sends annually to Israel is among the highest. “We take good care of our friends,” he concluded.

The 17% duty imposed by the Trump administration on Israeli exports has created widespread concern among Israel’s economic sectors. Even after Israel removed the tariffs on American goods in a bid to escape Trump’s tariffs, the administration declined to exempt Israel. An Israeli manufacturing association estimated that the tariffs will result in a $2.3 billion decline in Israeli exports every year, as well as a possible loss of 18,000 to 26,000 jobs.

Netanyahu arrived in Washington seeking to reverse or at least soften the policy, underscoring Israel’s longstanding dependence on U.S. markets and the symbolic weight of reciprocity in the alliance; on that, he seems to have failed.

Despite Trump’s unwillingness to lift tariffs, Trump and Netanyahu projected a sense of camaraderie, with Trump falsely declaring that “this man is working very hard to get the hostages out, I hope he’s being appreciated,” despite abundant evidence that Netanyahu prioritizes bombing Gaza over rescuing Israeli hostages. Netanyahu responded, “I have a good partner.”

In his opening remarks, Netanyahu asserted that he wishes to allow Palestinians to leave Gaza, echoing Trump’s plan — aired during Netanyahu’s February visit, when he became the first foreign leader hosted by Trump at the White House since his inauguration — to remove all Palestinians from Gaza. Contrary to recent reporting, Netanyahu claimed that Israel is not preventing Palestinians from leaving the enclave.

Netanyahu appears to be trying to soften his tone on ethnic cleansing by emphasizing “voluntary” removal. In that vein, his government has now established a new agency to help facilitate the emigration of Palestinians who wish to leave Gaza, as his military expands its occupation of the territory, wreaking even more destruction and rendering it uninhabitable.

Netanyahu’s announcement of plans to create a so-called “Morag Corridor” in southern Gaza — an Israeli-controlled zone intended to split the enclave — has drawn criticism for institutionalizing fragmentation under the pretext of enhancing security. At the same time, the situation on the West Bank remained tense following the killing of 14-year-old Amer Mohammad Saada Rabee, a Palestinian-American fatally shot by Israeli forces during a raid on the town of Beit Rima, as well as the killing of 15 humanitarian workers by Israeli forces in Gaza.

The incidents have reignited scrutiny of U.S. policy toward Israel's military conduct, particularly in light of Washington’s continuing weapons transfers and staunch diplomatic support.

According to a recent poll, 70 percent of Israelis want Netanyahu to resign. He was supposed to appear on Monday and Wednesday in the Jerusalem District Court due to his ongoing efforts to escape prosecution for corruption and fraud. Netanyahu’s last-minute trip to Washington followed a visit to Budapest that prompted Prime Minister Victor Orban to begin the process to withdraw Hungary from the International Criminal Court in order to avoid its legal obligation to detain Netanyahu as a wanted war criminal.

During the briefing, a journalist asked about the reaction of Palestinian Americans who had voted for Trump because they believed he would end the war in Gaza. “I’d like to see the war stop,” Trump replied, adding that he hoped it would soon, but then shifted to discussing the U.S. bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, as well as his plans to provide the Pentagon with a trillion-dollar budget, its largest ever. The journalist’s question remained unanswered.

(Editor's note: The story has been updated to accommodate new developments as of Tuesday)


Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 7, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt
Analysis | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Air sickness symptoms: Old nukes and the F-35

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa
Top image credit: 3rd SFG Soldiers on the range with Republic of Mali Armed Forces during a training exercise. Fort Bragg, NC. 8/4/2009 US Army Special Operations Command

Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa

Africa

The Trump administration is reportedly increasing its intelligence sharing and military support to military-ruled Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger — all as part of a transactional framework aimed at boosting American access to critical minerals while also contesting Russian and Chinese influence in Africa. The administration’s approach may well find a receptive audience in Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey, as well as within hawkish elements of the national security bureaucracy back in Washington. Yet the enhanced support is unlikely to make a meaningful difference in combating insurgencies in the troubled Sahel region.

The central Sahelian countries have been troubled by jihadist activity since the 2000s, and a rebellion in northern Mali in 2012 provided jihadists an even greater role in the region. Intensive French counterterrorism operations from 2013 to 2022 initially knocked jihadists back. Yet from 2015 onwards, insurgency spread from northern Mali into central zones of that country and into Burkina Faso and Niger, eventually spilling over into Benin, Togo, and Cote d’Ivoire as well (although Cote d’Ivoire has achieved some tenuous success in blunting jihadists’ momentum there).

keep readingShow less
Ursula von der Leyen Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: miss.cabul and noamgalai via shutterstock.com

Europe finally stands up to Israel — but only halfway

Europe

In a significant and long-overdue shift, the European Commission has finally moved to recalibrate its relationship with Israel. Its proposed package of measures — sanctioning extremist Israeli ministers and violent settlers and suspending valuable trade concessions — marks the most substantive attempt by the EU to impose consequences for the Netanyahu government’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who once stood accused of a pronounced pro-Israeli bias, now states unequivocally that “the horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop.” Her declaration that the EU remains an “unwavering champion of the two-state solution” being “undermined by the Israeli government’s recent settlement actions” is a stark admission that Brussels can no longer ignore the chasm between its stated principles and its enabling actions.

These steps are important. They signal a breaking point with an Israeli government that has dismissed, with increasing contempt, the concerns of its European partners. The proposed tariffs, reinstating Most Favored Nation rates on €5.8 billion of Israeli exports, are not merely symbolic; they are a tangible economic pressure designed to get Jerusalem’s attention. The targeted sanctions against ministers responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and policies add a necessary layer of personal accountability.

Yet, for all its heft, this package suffers from critical flaws: it is horribly late, it remains dangerously incomplete, and it is a crisis, to a large degree, of Europe’s own making.

First, the delay. For almost two years since Hamas’ attack on Israel and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza leading to the killing of more than 60,000 people the world has watched the devastating conflict unfold. The EU, “the biggest donor of humanitarian aid,” has been forced to react to a catastrophe its own trade and political support helped underwrite. This response, only now materializing after immense public and diplomatic pressure, feels less like proactive statecraft and more like a belated attempt to catch up to reality — and to the moral courage already shown by several of its own member states.

Second, and most glaringly, the package omits the most logical and legally sound measure: a full ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. This is a profound failure of principle and policy. The settlements are universally recognized under international law as illegal. They are the very engine of the occupation that von der Leyen now claims is undermining the two-state solution.

While the Commission hesitates, what the Brussels-based head of the European Middle East Project Martin Konecny calls “a domino effect” is taking hold at the national level. The Dutch government has just announced it will ban imports from Israeli settlements, becoming the fifth EU member state to do so, following recent and decisive moves by Ireland, Slovenia, Belgium, and Spain. This growing coalition underscores both the moral imperative and the political feasibility of such a measure that the Commission continues to avoid.

Furthermore, this is not merely a political choice; it is a legal obligation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its landmark opinion last year, made clear that all states are required to cease trade and support that facilitates Israel’s illegal settlement regime. As a matter of EU law, a union-wide ban could — and should — be implemented by a qualified majority vote as a necessary trade measure to uphold fundamental legal principles. The continued failure to do so renders the EU complicit in perpetuating the very system it now claims to oppose.

Third, the Commission’s entire approach suffers from a crippling legal and moral loophole: its proposed measures are framed purely through a humanitarian lens, deliberately sidestepping the EU’s explicit legal obligations to prevent genocide. By focusing solely on suspending parts of the Association Agreement, the proposal ignores the most direct form of complicity — the continued flow of arms from member states to Israel.

These lethal transfers, which fall outside the Agreement’s scope, are the subject of Nicaragua’s landmark case against Germany at the ICJ, which argues that providing weapons to a state plausibly committing genocide is a violation of the Genocide Convention. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany alone accounted for 30% of Israel’s major arms imports in 2019-2023. Berlin continued licensing the arms exports after the outbreak of war in 2023. The Commission’s failure to even address, let alone propose to halt, this pipeline of weapons from the member states while invoking “horrific events” reveals a strategic timidity that undermines the very rule of law it claims to defend.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.