Trump in angry outburst aimed at Israel and Iran

Trump Unleashes Scathing Rebuke at Israel and Iran Over Faltering Ceasefire, Demands De-escalation Amidst Heightened Tensions
In an extraordinary display of frustration and anger, President Donald Trump on Tuesday delivered a blistering indictment of both Israel and Iran, castigating them for what he perceived as immediate and flagrant violations of a recently brokered ceasefire agreement. Speaking to reporters on the White House's South Lawn before departing for a NATO summit in The Hague, a visibly incensed Trump railed against the actions of both nations, particularly directing his ire at Israel for what he described as an excessive and instantaneous bombing campaign following the announcement of the truce. His remarks underscored the fragile nature of the ceasefire and the volatile dynamics of the Middle East, with the former president employing unusually harsh language and expletives to convey his profound displeasure.
The ceasefire, which Trump had triumphantly announced just hours prior on his Truth Social platform, was intended to de-escalate a rapidly escalating conflict between the long-standing adversaries. However, almost immediately, reports emerged of renewed hostilities. Iran reportedly launched a missile after the truce was supposed to be in effect, though it missed its target and caused no harm. It was Israel's response, however, that appeared to ignite Trump's public fury. According to multiple reports and Trump's own assertions, Israel responded with a significant aerial bombardment, an action that the former president deemed a severe breach of the freshly minted agreement.
"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," Trump declared, his voice laced with indignation. He went on to say, "The biggest load that we've seen. I'm not happy with Israel. Don't go out first hour." His public rebuke of a key US ally, particularly in such raw and unfiltered terms, marked a significant departure from conventional diplomatic discourse and highlighted the immense pressure he felt to enforce the fragile peace he had declared. Trump also affirmed his displeasure with Iran, stating, "I'm not happy with Iran either," but his focus on Tuesday morning was unequivocally on Israel's swift and substantial retaliatory strikes.
Throughout the day, Trump continued to issue direct, real-time commands and warnings to Israel via his Truth Social account, imploring them to halt their operations. "ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS. IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!" he wrote in one post, later adding, "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, the Ceasefire is in effect!" These extraordinary directives, issued publicly rather than through traditional diplomatic channels, revealed the former president's hands-on and often unconventional approach to foreign policy, seemingly attempting to micromanage military operations from thousands of miles away.
Sources close to the matter indicated that Trump had engaged in direct phone calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly demanding that Israel cease its military operations to prevent a broader regional conflagration. It appears that these calls, coupled with Trump's public pressure, had an immediate effect, with reports suggesting that Israeli military aircraft were indeed ordered to return to base. This swift de-escalation, even if temporary, underscored the unique leverage and influence Trump believes he wields in the region.
Despite the immediate chaos and violations, Trump maintained that the ceasefire remained "in effect." When pressed by reporters on whether the agreement had been entirely broken, he responded, "I don't think so." This seemingly contradictory stance—acknowledging breaches while insisting on the agreement's validity—reflects the delicate tightrope he is walking: attempting to salvage a deal he views as a significant achievement while confronting the reality of deep-seated animosities.
His exasperation with both parties was perhaps best encapsulated in a crude, albeit candid, assessment of the enduring conflict. "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f*** they're doing," Trump remarked, painting a grim picture of a region mired in seemingly intractable cycles of violence and retaliation. This blunt analysis, while lacking diplomatic nuance, resonated with many who view the Israel-Iran conflict as a seemingly endless cycle of aggression.
The immediate aftermath of Trump's "ceasefire" announcement and subsequent tirade also brought to light a nuanced, and at times contradictory, stance on the question of "regime change" in Iran. Just days prior, Trump had mused on Truth Social, "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" However, on Tuesday, while speaking on Air Force One en route to the NATO summit, he clarified that he does not seek "regime change" in Iran, suggesting such a pursuit would only lead to chaos. This apparent shift in messaging, or at least a public re-calibration, likely aimed to reassure both regional and international actors that his primary goal was de-escalation and stability, not an open-ended military intervention.
The situation remains fluid and highly unpredictable. While Trump's public anger and direct intervention appear to have temporarily halted Israel's retaliatory strikes, the underlying tensions and deep distrust between Israel and Iran persist. The challenge now lies in transforming a fragile, publicly enforced truce into a more sustainable peace, a task that will undoubtedly test the limits of diplomacy and the patience of all involved, including a visibly frustrated former US President. His current focus on the ceasefire, despite the immediate challenges, suggests a continued commitment to shaping the narrative and outcome in the volatile Middle East.
Source@BBC