{"id":1177,"date":"2025-06-18T17:45:57","date_gmt":"2025-06-18T17:45:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vegacelis.com\/?p=1177"},"modified":"2025-06-20T10:57:06","modified_gmt":"2025-06-20T10:57:06","slug":"trump-says-chill-bibi-goes-full-thrill-so-whos-in-charge-of-the-middle-east","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vegacelis.com\/index.php\/2025\/06\/18\/trump-says-chill-bibi-goes-full-thrill-so-whos-in-charge-of-the-middle-east\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump says \u2018chill,\u2019 Bibi goes full thrill. So, who\u2019s in charge of the Middle East?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Behind the rhetoric, Israel\u2019s offensive has revealed just how little control the US now wields<\/strong><\/p>\n If the Academy handed out Oscars for political theater, Donald Trump would be a shoo-in for the 2025 award for Worst Performance in a Leading Role. His latest remarks are less about statesmanship and more about saving face as global events spin far beyond the grasp of American diplomacy. And the harder he tries to project himself as a dealmaker pulling strings behind the scenes, the clearer it becomes: Western dominance is cracking, and Washington is reacting more on impulse than strategy.<\/p>\n The latest flashpoint – the 2025 escalation between Israel and Iran – has exposed the crumbling illusion of American leadership. Despite Trump’s claim that he “convinced”<\/em> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to strike Iran, the facts tell a different story. Netanyahu brushed off the advice and launched a sweeping assault on Iranian targets – not just military, but symbolic. In one bold move, he derailed already fragile nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran, revealing exactly who sets the agenda in the region now.<\/p>\n Faced with this reality, US leaders had two choices: admit their influence over Israel had faded, or publicly support the strikes and cling to the image of leadership – even if it meant further undermining their credibility as a neutral arbiter. Unsurprisingly, they chose the latter. Backing Israel at the expense of diplomacy with Iran has become business as usual. Washington isn’t conducting the symphony anymore; it’s trying to stay in rhythm while the conductor’s baton is in someone else’s hand.<\/p>\n So when Trump talks about having “leverage”<\/em> over Israel, it sounds more like community theater than statesmanship. Even he doesn’t seem to believe the part he’s playing. In 2025, once again, the United States isn’t leading the charge – it’s being dragged along.<\/p>\n And the more American leaders insist everything’s fine, the more obvious it becomes: the age of Western supremacy is fading out, in a blaze of theatrical flair that rivals Trump’s own off-script improvisations.<\/p>\n \n Read more<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A close look at Trump’s statements – and those from his administration – in the wake of Israel’s strike on Iran reveals a political paradox: while the US officially opposed escalation, it did nothing to stop it. Why? Because the political cost at home was too high. In an election year, Trump couldn’t risk a fight with one of the GOP’s most reliable bases: pro-Israel voters and the powerful lobbying machine behind them.<\/p>\n Trump tried to play it both ways. On one hand, he said, “It wasn’t a surprise to me,”<\/em> and claimed he neither endorsed nor blocked the strike. But just days earlier, he boasted: “I talked to Bibi. He promised not to do anything drastic. We held him back.”<\/em><\/p>\n That’s a crucial detail. At least on the surface, the Trump White House wanted to avoid escalation. But once the missiles flew, Trump pivoted hard:<\/p>\n “Israel has the right to defend itself.”<\/em><\/p>\n “The US wasn’t involved in the operation.”<\/em><\/p>\n “But if Iran hits us, we’ll hit back harder than ever.”<\/em><\/p>\n This about-face reveals just how little influence Washington had. Netanyahu played the hand he wanted – defying US interests, derailing diplomacy, and still compelling American support. Warnings from Washington didn’t even register.<\/p>\n Caught flat-footed, Trump scrambled to regain control with vague reassurances:<\/p>\n “Iran might still get a second chance.”<\/em><\/p>\n “We’re open to talks.”<\/em><\/p>\n “Iranian officials are calling me. They want to talk.”<\/em><\/p>\n These weren’t policy statements. They were PR – a bid to dodge blame for a failed containment strategy. His line that “I gave Iran a chance, but they didn’t take it”<\/em> is less a fact and more a way to recast himself as the peacemaker – the guy who ended tensions between India and Pakistan and now promises to “make the Middle East great again.”<\/em><\/p>\nWhat did Trump actually say?<\/h2>\n