Trump, Iran and Global Market Shock

Oil prices rose sharply after President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s response to U.S. proposals aimed at ending the war between Iran and Israel. According to Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency, Tehran’s reply—sent through mediator Pakistan—called for an immediate end to the conflict and guarantees that the U.S. and Israel would not launch further attacks on Iran. Trump publicly dismissed the response as “totally unacceptable,” while Washington’s reported terms included restoring free transit through the Strait of Hormuz and halting Iranian nuclear enrichment. The escalation comes amid ongoing disruption in the strategic waterway, through which roughly a fifth of global oil and gas shipments normally pass, and which has been effectively shut since the war began on 28 February. As a result, international benchmark Brent crude climbed 4.1% to $105.50 a barrel in Asian trading, and U.S.-traded crude rose 4.4% to $99.80. The article places the price surge in the broader context of volatile energy markets since the conflict started, noting that Brent has been back above $100 since a ceasefire took effect on 8 April. It also highlights how major energy firms such as Aramco, BP, and Shell have benefited from the spike in oil and gas prices, posting stronger earnings during the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also cited as insisting that the war will not end until Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles are removed.

President Donald Trump has rejected Iran’s response to a US proposal aimed at ending the war, calling it “totally unacceptable.” The article describes a tense standoff between the US, Iran, and Israel over the terms of a possible settlement, including nuclear enrichment, sanctions relief, a ceasefire, and control over the Strait of Hormuz. According to Iranian and US reporting, Tehran’s counterproposal called for an immediate end to fighting on all fronts, an end to the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, guarantees against further attacks, compensation for war damage, and recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the strait. Trump, however, says he does not like Iran’s reply and continues to suggest the conflict will end quickly, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists the war cannot be considered over until Iran’s enrichment sites are dismantled and its uranium stockpile is removed. The article also highlights the broader regional and economic fallout. Iran has warned ships and neighboring states about cooperating with US sanctions and has threatened “severe consequences” for vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes. This has already contributed to rising oil prices and near-disruption of traffic through the strait. The US continues its blockade of Iranian ports, while Britain and France are pursuing a maritime security mission to protect shipping once hostilities end. Meanwhile, incidents involving drones and a reported projectile strike near Doha suggest the conflict is affecting Gulf states more widely. The article frames the situation as a high-stakes geopolitical confrontation combining military pressure, naval control, nuclear concerns, and diplomacy under severe strain.

The article argues that Taiwan will be the central issue in President Donald Trump’s high-stakes summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, overshadowing broader global concerns such as the Iran war. It explains that Taiwan remains the most sensitive point in U.S.-China relations because Washington has long maintained strategic ambiguity over whether it would defend the island militarily while still providing substantial arms sales to support Taiwan’s self-defense. The article emphasizes that Trump’s willingness to discuss a proposed $14 billion arms package for Taiwan, along with any potential shift in U.S. diplomatic language on Taiwanese independence, has alarmed officials in Taipei and angered Beijing. Chinese leaders want the United States to move from saying it “does not support” Taiwan independence to saying it “opposes” it, a change that could have major symbolic and practical consequences. The piece also presents Taiwan’s perspective through Deputy Foreign Minister Chen Ming-chi, who insists that Taiwan is a dependable U.S. partner and that the Taiwanese public would never accept Beijing’s “one country, two systems” framework. Chen argues that Taiwan’s democratic identity, freedom of speech, and experience of Hong Kong’s 2019 crackdown make reunification under Communist Party rule unacceptable to most Taiwanese. The article further notes Taiwan’s geopolitical importance, especially its dominance in producing advanced semiconductors essential to AI and defense technologies. On the Chinese side, Xi Jinping is portrayed as committed to reunification and willing to use force if necessary, although recent U.S. intelligence assessments and reported purges in China’s military leadership suggest that a near-term invasion is unlikely. Overall, the article frames Taiwan as a flashpoint where diplomacy, military strategy, democracy, and global technology supply chains intersect.

This CBS News transcript features a wide-ranging exchange between Margaret Brennan and Energy Secretary Chris Wright about U.S. policy toward Iran, the status of military and economic pressure on Tehran, and the future of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Wright says the immediate military objectives against Iran have largely been achieved, including degrading Iran’s missile, drone, naval, air force, and air defense capabilities. However, he emphasizes that the larger goal of ending Iran’s nuclear program has not yet been completed and may still require negotiation or another form of intervention. He says the U.S. is prepared to remove Iran’s highly enriched uranium, possibly involving the Department of Energy, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or other U.S. personnel, though no exact plan has been finalized. The interview also focuses on tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has allegedly harassed commercial and military shipping. Wright says the United States is actively working to restore free passage through the strait and that the earlier “Project Freedom” effort was paused to allow room for negotiations. He frames economic pressure, including the blockade of Iranian oil exports and a separate operation targeting overseas assets of IRGC leaders, as tools intended to push Iran toward a deal. Throughout the interview, Wright presents the administration’s position as one of escalating leverage: keep pressure on Iran, insist on ending its nuclear program, and restore safe commercial transit in the Gulf, while leaving open either diplomacy or renewed military action if negotiations fail.

CNBC’s Daily Open frames the week as a high-pressure moment for three major leaders: U.S. President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The article says Trump has rejected Iran’s counterproposal to end the 10-week Middle East war, keeping tensions high and lifting oil prices as the Strait of Hormuz remains threatened. It notes that global stock markets are relatively muted despite the geopolitical shock, though some Asian markets, such as South Korea’s Kospi, are hitting records. The article also highlights Starmer’s political crisis after severe local election losses for Labour, with a possible leadership challenge looming and a make-or-break speech planned. On the economic front, China’s April inflation and export figures are stronger than expected, likely reflecting higher commodity costs and rush orders tied to fears of further disruption from the Iran conflict. The piece also looks ahead to the anticipated Trump-Xi summit in Beijing, suggesting the Middle East conflict may crowd out other trade issues such as tariffs and rare earth supplies. Separately, Saudi Aramco reported better-than-expected first-quarter profits, helped by its ability to bypass disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz. The article closes with a sidebar on Scotch whisky, noting that Trump’s removal of a U.S. tariff could revive interest in cask investing in the struggling industry.

European markets were set to open mixed on Monday as investors reacted to renewed uncertainty over peace talks between the United States and Iran. The article says the U.K.’s FTSE 100 was expected to open slightly higher, while Germany’s DAX and France’s CAC 40 were seen roughly flat and Italy’s FTSE MIB slightly lower. The broader market mood was cautious because U.S. President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s counterproposal to end the conflict in the Middle East, calling it "TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!" Iran’s reported demands included ending the war on all fronts and lifting sanctions, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also said the war with Iran was not over, reinforcing the sense that tensions remain elevated. The news pushed oil futures higher and U.S. futures lower in overnight trading, highlighting the market’s sensitivity to geopolitical risk. Beyond the Iran situation, investors are also watching Trump’s upcoming trip to China, where he is expected to meet Chinese Premier Xi Jinping to discuss trade, rare earth export controls, and broader geopolitical issues. The article notes that there were no major earnings releases or economic data due in Europe on Monday, suggesting the day’s trading will likely be driven more by geopolitics than by corporate or macroeconomic news.

U.S. stock futures edged lower early Monday after a strong prior week on Wall Street, as investors weighed renewed geopolitical tension in the Middle East against still-resilient economic and market momentum. The article says the Dow futures slipped modestly, while S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 futures were also slightly down, following a week in which the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite posted gains of more than 2% and 4%, respectively, and each recorded a sixth straight weekly advance. The Dow also logged its fifth gain in six weeks. Friday’s rally was supported by April nonfarm payrolls data showing 115,000 jobs added, well above economist expectations, which helped push the S&P 500 and Nasdaq to all-time closing highs. The main market concern is the escalation in tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Iran reportedly sent a new proposal aimed at ending the conflict and lifting sanctions, but President Donald Trump rejected it on Truth Social, calling the response “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” That rejection pushed oil prices higher in overnight trading, with crude futures climbing sharply. The article notes that the oil-price move could affect inflation and may be reflected in this week’s consumer and producer price index reports. Asian markets reflected the same risk-off/risk-on mix, with South Korea’s Kospi hitting a fresh record and led by a surge in SK Hynix, while Japan, Australia, China, and Hong Kong posted mixed moves. U.S. markets, meanwhile, are being watched for further inflation data and earnings from companies such as Under Armour and Cisco. Overall, the article frames a market that remains broadly strong, but increasingly sensitive to war headlines and energy-price shocks.

The article examines the high-stakes Trump-Xi summit in Beijing, where U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to discuss a wide-ranging agenda that includes trade, technology, rare earth export controls, Taiwan, the Iran war, artificial intelligence, and broader geopolitical alignment. The piece emphasizes that the outcome could have major consequences not only for the bilateral relationship, but also for global supply chains, energy markets, and the international rules-based order. It highlights how China’s restrictions on rare earth exports and semiconductors have already disrupted automakers and economies in Europe, Japan, and South Korea, while U.S.-China tensions over sanctions on Iranian oil and AI technology theft allegations add to the volatility. A major theme is the global ripple effect of the summit. Analysts warn that any breakdown in talks could intensify instability, while even limited cooperation could ease some pressure, especially if both sides coordinate on reopening the Strait of Hormuz or de-escalating the energy shock tied to the Iran conflict. The article details region-specific concerns: Taiwan is the most sensitive flashpoint, Southeast Asian states are watching tariff policy and oil supply disruptions, Japan and the European Union could lose market share if U.S.-China trade relations improve, and Russia is wary of any thaw that might weaken China’s support for Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine. The piece frames the summit as an event with far-reaching implications for trade, security, and global power balances, and suggests that many governments will be closely monitoring the outcome even though they are not directly at the table.

The article reports a worsening U.S.-Iran standoff after President Donald Trump rejected Tehran’s counterproposal to end the 10-week Middle East war, calling it “totally unacceptable.” Iran responded defiantly, insisting it would not “bow” to the United States and demanding war reparations, full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, an end to sanctions, and the release of frozen assets. The disagreement centers on two linked issues: Iran’s nuclear program and control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint that has been disrupted by the conflict. The article describes how negotiations remain deadlocked. The U.S. wants Iran to end its nuclear program and provide assurances that it will not continue uranium enrichment, while Iran has rejected dismantling its nuclear facilities and proposed only limited concessions such as suspending enrichment for a shorter period, diluting some highly enriched uranium, or transferring some of it to a third country under conditions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the war is not over because Iran still has uranium, enrichment sites, proxy groups, and a ballistic missile program. Tensions are also affecting energy markets. Iran has continued drone attacks on Gulf neighbors, and the Strait of Hormuz remains unstable despite a symbolic crossing by a Qatari LNG tanker. Oil prices rose sharply, reflecting market fears of further escalation. The standoff is now spilling into broader geopolitics ahead of Trump’s summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with Washington hoping Beijing will pressure Tehran to reopen the strait. China, however, is balancing its interest in stable energy flows with its strategic partnership with Iran, making any meaningful mediation uncertain.

The article examines whether Donald Trump could effectively reopen and secure the Strait of Hormuz if the United States chose to escort neutral shipping through it. Its central answer is skeptical: probably not. The piece frames the strait as a strategically vital chokepoint where American naval power alone may be insufficient to restore normal traffic or deter Iranian disruption. It emphasizes that any attempt to “reopen” the waterway would likely trigger escalation rather than resolution, especially given Iran’s capacity to respond asymmetrically. The article notes that on May 4 Trump announced that America would begin guiding neutral ships through the strait, and that events quickly escalated: U.S. forces destroyed several Iranian boats, while Iran retaliated with missiles against American vessels. This tit-for-tat underscores the danger of direct confrontation and suggests that the situation is not a simple maritime security problem but part of a broader standoff. Beyond the shipping lane itself, the article highlights that Trump still has to deal with Iran’s uranium program, implying that the Strait of Hormuz crisis cannot be separated from the wider nuclear dispute. The overall argument is that even if the U.S. can project force in the Gulf, a durable solution would require addressing Iran’s broader strategic incentives and nuclear ambitions. The article’s broader implication is that peace or stability in the Gulf remains distant, and that attempts to force open the strait risk deepening a damaging stalemate rather than ending it.

The article argues that despite Donald Trump’s public claims of imminent diplomatic progress, the conflict involving Iran and the Gulf remains unstable and far from a durable peace. It describes a rapid sequence of developments: Trump announced a plan to keep merchant shipping moving through the Strait of Hormuz, then suspended it two days later; Iran violated a ceasefire by attacking the United Arab Emirates; and the United States downplayed the attack rather than treating it as a major escalation. Against this backdrop, Trump continues to suggest that a breakthrough is near, but the article implies that such optimism is premature. The piece frames the region as caught between temporary pauses in violence and the absence of any meaningful political settlement. The Strait of Hormuz remains a strategic chokepoint, the UAE is now directly targeted, and Iran’s behavior suggests that ceasefire violations can quickly reignite wider conflict. The article’s broader message is skepticism toward Trump’s diplomacy-by-announcement style: headline-grabbing initiatives may create the appearance of motion, but they do not resolve the underlying confrontation. In short, the Gulf war appears stalled rather than solved, and the prospects for a lasting peace remain distant.

The article argues that Iran’s leaders are increasingly split over whether to pursue diplomacy with the United States or prepare for renewed conflict. It reports that, according to leaks from the White House, Washington and Tehran are closer than before to a possible agreement to end the war between them, and that Donald Trump has described the discussions as making very good progress. Iran has said the American proposal is under review. However, the article stresses that Iranian decision-makers are likely to judge events by deeds rather than rhetoric. It points to a series of hostile actions: an American attack on an Iranian tanker in the Gulf, an Israeli strike on Beirut, and Iran’s creation of a new Persian Gulf Strait Authority that demands payment in rials for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. These moves suggest that the situation is still highly volatile. The article concludes that control of the strait is as strategically important as Iran’s nuclear program and could derail any emerging deal, potentially reigniting broader fighting. Overall, the piece portrays a fragile diplomatic moment shadowed by military escalation, competing power centers in Iran, and the risk that symbolic and strategic disputes could undo negotiations.

This Economist Middle East & Africa page is a section overview highlighting a range of major political, security, and economic issues across Africa and the Middle East. Several items focus on instability and conflict: a Congolese militia (M23) is reportedly seeking to sell critical minerals to Donald Trump, underscoring both its strategic ambitions and its fragility; jihadist violence is deepening in Mali and across the Sahel; Iran is split over whether diplomacy with the United States is worthwhile; and tensions in the Gulf remain high, with Iran now targeting the UAE and discussion of the Strait of Hormuz and uranium talks. Other pieces examine the regional balance of power and governance, including Arab rulers’ differing attitudes toward Iran and the weakened but still dangerous position of Hizbullah in Lebanon. The page also includes coverage of Gaza’s stalled political situation, the growth of African fintech and cross-border payments, efforts to improve safari tourism, and the possibility of China helping industrialize Africa. Overall, the page presents a snapshot of the region’s defining challenges and opportunities: conflict, diplomacy, security threats, and economic transformation.

The article is a live CNN update on the escalating standoff between Iran, the United States, Israel, and European powers over a peace proposal and the broader war involving Iran. The central development is that President Donald Trump called Iran’s response to a US peace proposal “totally unacceptable,” while Iranian state media said Tehran’s counterproposal sought recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and included a demand for compensation. The failure of talks has driven oil prices higher, intensifying global concerns about energy security because the Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint for roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil. The piece also highlights growing international military and diplomatic activity around protecting shipping in the waterway. Britain and France plan to host defense ministers from more than 40 nations to discuss restoring trade flow in the Strait of Hormuz, while Britain says it has deployed HMS Dragon on a strictly defensive mission and France has positioned a carrier strike group for possible participation in a multinational maritime security effort. Iran has warned both countries against sending warships. The article additionally covers the economic fallout in India, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged citizens to conserve fuel, avoid foreign weddings, work from home, and reduce spending on imports and travel. It also notes comments from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said the war is not over, argued that Iran still retains key nuclear and missile capabilities, and said he wants to reduce US military support for Israel over time from $3.8 billion annually to zero. Finally, the update mentions the release of Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi from a hospital transfer on bail and notes that the war is giving China insight into US military capabilities under combat conditions.

Oil prices rose and stock futures fell on Sunday after negotiations over a U.S.-Iran peace deal appeared to stall, with President Trump calling Iran’s response to the U.S. proposal “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” on social media. The article says Tehran has proposed a short-term arrangement that would pause fighting for 30 days and end Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy shipping route. Markets reacted quickly to the lack of progress: Brent crude climbed more than 3% to above $104 a barrel, West Texas Intermediate rose more than 3% to above $98, and S&P 500 futures pointed to a modest decline when U.S. markets reopened Monday. The piece also notes that gasoline prices in the United States slipped slightly to a national average of $4.52 per gallon, though they remain about 52% higher since the war began. Diesel prices stayed near $5.65 per gallon, up about 50% from the start of the conflict. Separately, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the Trump administration would be open to temporarily pausing the federal gas tax, which is 18.4 cents per gallon, as Americans continue to face elevated fuel costs.

The article examines how so-called middle powers — countries such as Japan, Australia, South Korea, India, Vietnam, Brazil, Canada, and Poland — are reacting to a more volatile global order shaped by the war in Iran, disruptions to energy supplies, and the looming Trump-Xi summit in Beijing. With trust in both the United States and China at low levels, these countries are trying to hedge, diversify partnerships, and strengthen one another’s ties without provoking either superpower. The piece argues that President Trump’s unpredictable, deal-driven approach creates deep anxiety among U.S. allies, especially in Asia, who fear that he might trade away support for Taiwan, military deployments, or long-term security commitments in exchange for economic concessions from Xi Jinping. The article highlights a wave of recent defense and trade agreements among middle powers as evidence of a quiet but accelerating realignment. Poland is hosting South Korean tank production, Australia is buying Japanese warships, Canada is sending uranium to India, India is offering cruise missiles to Vietnam, and Brazil is building transport planes for the UAE. These moves are presented not as anti-U.S. blocs, but as pragmatic efforts to build resilience and reduce dependence on Washington. At the same time, leaders in these countries continue to publicly praise American leadership, even as many privately express that faith in the United States is fading. The article also stresses that no country wants to antagonize China, which remains capable of punishing governments economically and diplomatically. Even when middle powers deepen cooperation with one another, they do so cautiously, avoiding overt anti-China rhetoric. The result is a geopolitics of hedging: countries quietly working together, trying to preserve autonomy, and hoping to avoid being forced to choose between rival giants. Overall, the story portrays a world in which smaller powers are no longer passively aligned with the United States, but are instead adapting to uncertainty by building flexible networks of cooperation while bracing for the consequences of a potentially consequential Trump-Xi meeting.

China has confirmed that US President Donald Trump will make a state visit to Beijing from May 13 to 15, following an invitation from President Xi Jinping. The trip will be the first visit to China by a sitting US president in nearly nine years, underscoring its diplomatic importance and the strained backdrop of US-China relations. The article says the visit comes amid heightened tensions between the two powers over multiple issues, while also occurring against a wider global context marked by the fragile US-Iran ceasefire and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, both of which are affecting energy markets and the global economy. According to White House principal deputy press secretary Anna Kelly, Trump is expected to arrive Wednesday evening and take part in a welcome ceremony, a bilateral meeting with Xi on Thursday, a visit to the Temple of Heaven, and a state banquet. The two leaders are also scheduled to meet again on Friday for a bilateral tea and working lunch. Kelly added that the US plans to host Xi for a reciprocal visit later in the year, suggesting both sides are trying to keep diplomatic engagement moving despite ongoing frictions. Overall, the article frames the visit as a significant but delicate moment in US-China diplomacy, with ceremonial details emphasized alongside the broader geopolitical context.

The article reports on the latest developments in the ongoing US-Israel war against Iran, focusing on the stalled peace talks and President Donald Trump’s rejection of Iran’s response to a recent US proposal. According to the report, Iran had sent back a one-page memo intended to end the war, but Trump dismissed it publicly on social media as “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” The article says Tehran’s response, as described by Iran’s Tasnim news agency citing an informed source, called for an immediate end to the war and the maritime blockade on Iran, as well as the lifting of US sanctions related to Iranian oil sales. The piece frames these events as the main overnight takeaways, emphasizing the lack of progress in negotiations after ten weeks of conflict. It also notes that a Qatari tanker passed through the Strait of Hormuz, an important maritime chokepoint, underscoring the broader regional stakes and the continuing tension around shipping and energy flows. Overall, the article is a concise diplomatic and geopolitical update centered on the failure of negotiations and the persistence of the conflict.

The article examines Donald Trump’s planned return to Beijing in May 2026 and contrasts it with his highly publicized first visit to China in 2017. It argues that while the upcoming summit may produce pragmatic, narrow agreements, the broader US-China relationship has become far more strained over the past decade. The article frames the visit as an opportunity for the two leaders to slow the deterioration in ties rather than reset them. The piece says the likely agenda is focused on short-term, practical outcomes: extending a trade truce, securing Chinese purchases of American goods, and avoiding further escalation. Possible deliverables include Boeing aircraft sales, agricultural purchases, energy cooperation, rare earth supply stability, and cooperation on fentanyl. But the article stresses that the deepest disputes—especially Taiwan, technology competition, supply chains, and broader geopolitical tensions involving Iran, North Korea, and the South China Sea—will remain unresolved. A major theme is the transformation in bilateral relations since the 2017 trip, which was marked by ceremonial warmth, personal chemistry between Trump and Xi Jinping, and headline-grabbing business deals. The article then traces the collapse of that goodwill through the 2018 trade war, the Covid-19 pandemic, consulate closures in 2020, Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 Taiwan visit, the 2023 balloon incident, and Trump’s second-term tariff escalation under an “America first” approach. By presenting this timeline, the article suggests that the current summit is being held against a backdrop of strategic rivalry, mutual suspicion, and limited room for meaningful breakthrough.

Britain and France are preparing to host a multinational meeting on May 11 to coordinate a European-led naval mission intended to escort commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz once a stable ceasefire is in place. More than 40 countries are expected to attend and contribute military capabilities such as demining, escorting, and air policing, reflecting a defensive effort to restore confidence in shipping through one of the world’s most strategically important waterways. British Defence Secretary John Healey said the meeting aims to convert diplomatic agreement into practical military planning, and he will co-chair the session with French counterpart Catherine Vautrin. The proposed mission comes amid heightened regional tension after Iran effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz following war triggered by US-Israel strikes on Feb 28. Iran’s deputy foreign minister sharply condemned the plan, calling any extra-regional naval deployment an escalation of the conflict and warning of a military response if such forces are stationed near the strait. Iran argues the initiative is an attempt to militarise a vital waterway and obscure the real causes of insecurity in the region. The disruption has already had major global economic consequences. The Strait of Hormuz carries about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas under normal conditions, and its closure has contributed to surging fuel prices and instability in oil and gas markets. Britain is expected to contribute the HMS Dragon, a warship capable of intercepting guided missiles, but the mission will only begin after a sustained ceasefire or peace agreement. The article also notes prior criticism from US President Donald Trump, who accused Britain and other NATO allies of being slow to provide naval support and mocked proposed carrier deployments as insufficient.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a CBS News interview that he wants Israel to reduce and eventually eliminate its financial dependence on US military aid within about a decade. He framed this as an opportunity to reset the US-Israel financial relationship, saying he does not want to wait for a future US Congress and prefers to begin the process immediately. Netanyahu noted that Israel currently receives about US$3.8 billion annually in American military assistance and referenced the broader US$38 billion aid package agreed for 2018 to 2028. The article places Netanyahu’s comments in the context of shifting US public and political support for Israel since the Gaza war began in October 2023. It cites polling showing declining favorability toward Israel among US adults and reduced confidence in Netanyahu’s judgment on world affairs. Netanyahu argued that the decline in support is linked to the rise of social media and said foreign actors may have manipulated online platforms in ways that harmed Israel, though he rejected censorship. The piece also covers Netanyahu’s remarks about the recent war involving Iran, the United States, and Israel. He said the conflict increased fuel prices and contributed to higher US inflation, and acknowledged Israel only later appreciated Iran’s ability to threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. While he declined to reveal operational details or timing for Israel’s Iran strategy, he suggested that weakening or toppling Iran’s regime could unravel the wider network of regional militant groups aligned with Tehran, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. He said regime change was possible but not guaranteed.