Neocons pushing President Trump to abandon negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and instead prioritize military action apparently have a heavy hitter in their corner: Republican Party king-maker Rupert Murdoch.
The battle between Trump’s MAGA loyalists and the neocons over war with Iran intensified last week when right-wing media star Tucker Carlson railed against conservative talk show host Mark Levin for continuing to push the president to attack Iran instead of making a deal over Tehran’s nuclear program.
Politico reported on Tuesday that Carlson’s attack on Levin came after he was tipped off that during a private lunch with Trump at the White House hours prior, Levin was urging the president “to allow the Israeli government to strike Iranian nuclear sites.”
While the New York Post — one of the crown jewels of Murdoch’s media empire — has been targeting Trump’s top Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff over his talks with Iran, the Politico report adds that the Fox News chairman’s role in the campaign to get Trump to back off seeking a nuclear deal is much more involved.
Murdoch has apparently “privately complained to confidants about Witkoff’s efforts” and one source close to Trump said that “Levin and Murdoch are all over Trump all the time.” But the source said that the lobbying “might actually hurt their case,” adding, “[o]nce he’s kind of made his mind up, you can come at it later from a different angle, but you keep pressing, he digs in.”
Meanwhile, according to Politico, other Trump aides are concerned that those advocating against a deal or pushing for war can have influence on the president:
Still, even among those pressing for diplomacy, there is concern about the president’s penchant for changing his mind depending on who he’s last spoken to. There’s a fear Trump — who has threatened to bomb Iran if they don’t come to heel — could act on rhetoric many largely deem negotiating bravado.
“[Trump is] very solid in what he wants and letting Witkoff do his thing,” said one person close to the talks. “But depending on who he hears from, he may move a little bit.”
Ultimately “a longtime Trump ally” says the president “is not going to support war” with Iran. “But I’m telling you,” the ally said, “these guys won’t take no for an answer.”
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Top image credit: Business magnate Rupert Murdoch watches as United States President Donald J Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, February 3, 2025. Credit: Chris Kleponis / Pool/Sipa USA VIA REUTERS
Top photo credit: Firefighters work at the scene of a damaged building in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The Israeli attack on Iran is an act of naked aggression, in clear violation of international law as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and of anything that can labeled a rules-based international order.
The attack continues and expands Israel’s record of profligate use of military force throughout its region, including serial attacks on Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories, including the devastation in the Gaza Strip that many informed and objective observers consider genocide. Israel has thrown its military weight around the Middle East far more than any other state and as such is the biggest destabilizing actor in the region.
The Israeli claim that its attack is “pre-emptive” is false. There was no indication of any imminent Iranian attack in the other direction. Nothing in press reporting or leaked intelligence suggested any such thing. Threats to initiate an attack, and associated inflammatory rhetoric, have for years come more from Israel than from Iran, whose own threats have uniformly been couched as warnings that Iran would respond vigorously if Israel attacked it.
Even the looser concept of a preventive war does not justify what Israel has done. The Iranian nuclear program has been the main focus, and Israel says its attack has hit, among other things, nuclear-related targets. But Iran demonstrated with its signature of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and adherence to it — until President Trump in his first term reneged on the agreement — that it was willing to close all paths to a possible Iranian nuclear weapon through peaceful diplomacy and strict international monitoring of its program.
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, perspective comes from considering who is the attacker as well as who was attacked. Israel is generally understood to have long had the sole nuclear weapons in the Middle East. It acquired that nuclear force clandestinely, outside of any international control regime, and partly by stealing nuclear material from the United States.
And yet, part of its rationale for its aggression against Iran is the mere possibility that Iran might someday acquire a weapon that it has never had and that it has demonstrated the willingness to forego in exchange for normal commercial and political relations with other states.
The Israeli attack is in any case counterproductive as far as nuclear nonproliferation is concerned, as was true of an earlier instance of Israel attacking another state’s nuclear facility. The underground nature of key Iranian nuclear infrastructure, and the knowledge that Iranian scientists will retain, severely limit the extent to which any Israeli airstrikes will set back Iran’s program. Meanwhile, an armed attack by a foreign adversary strengthens whatever voices there are in Tehran arguing that Iran needs to develop a nuclear weapon as a deterrent.
As for ballistic missiles, which Israel also mentioned as a target, no case has been made that of all the armed forces in the Middle East, Iran’s should be the only one stripped of this capability. This is especially true considering that it is Israel that has the biggest capability to deliver lethal ordnance from the air at a distance.
Curbing Iranian military capability is not the sole or even the prime motivation for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to attack Iran. Promoting maximum isolation and hatred of Iran has long been a principal Israeli foreign policy objective, in order to weaken a regional rival, distract attention from Israel’s own destabilizing actions, and prevent a rapprochement between Iran and Israel’s principal backer, the United States.
In furtherance of these objectives, Israel has opposed almost any diplomacy with Iran. Reducing the chance that current U.S.-Iranian negotiations will yield a new nuclear agreement certainly was an Israeli motivation behind the attack.
Netanyahu has additional motivations related to his need to keep a war going indefinitely to maintain his hard-right coalition in power and to delay fully facing corruption charges. With the slaughter in Gaza perhaps nearing a culmination point, beginning a new war against Iran appeared attractive to him.
Some press reports indicate Trump and his advisers knew the Israel attack was coming. In any event, there were enough indications of a coming attack that they should have known. The only appropriate U.S. response would have been to do everything possible to discourage the Israelis from attacking. We do not know that the administration did so.
Among the immediate consequences of the Israeli aggression is that people, including innocent people, will die, or have already been killed. More will die from the inevitable Iranian response. Despite recent efforts by the United States to reduce its vulnerability to a response by evacuating some personnel from the region, some of those killed or otherwise harmed are likely to be American.
In Tehran, the attack will play into the hands of Iranian hardliners, and there will some of the usual rally-round-the-flag effect. The prospects for success in the current nuclear negotiations have suffered a significant blow.
The risks of escalation into a wider war are significant. Some of the possible scenarios would involve U.S. forces.
Without a strong U.S. condemnation of the attack, the United States will share in the international opprobrium that Israel richly deserves.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks prior to signing "phase one" of the U.S.-China trade agreement in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., January 15, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
Following talks in London on Sunday and Monday, the United States and China reached what President Trump called a “deal.” More precisely, as China’s trade representative Li Chenggang put it, the two sides agreed “in principle” to “a framework” that might actually “implement the agreements” the two sides reached last week and last month.
This caution among Chinese negotiators reflects the tortuous path they have traveled to simply begin discussions with the Trump administration. The lessons from that experience might now stabilize the course of U.S.–China diplomacy, but perilous obstacles remain.
The London agreement takes the two sides back to where they were on May 12, at the conclusion of the talks in Geneva that represented the first meaningful diplomatic exchange between the U.S. and China under Trump. The Geneva agreement paused the quasi-embargo the two sides had imposed on each other in April and established a structure for trade negotiations. But it fell apart the next day when Trump’s Commerce Department imposed damaging new measures against China’s most successful multinational company, Huawei.
Additional hostile moves from Trump followed, including both economic restrictions and the announcement that the administration would “aggressively” revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the U.S. In response, China delayed its promised release of rare earth exports, leading to shortages among major U.S. corporations.
The substance of the London agreement seems to be that both sides will curtail their post-Geneva attacks. The details have not been made public, but China will reportedly permit its rare earth export licensing system to start moving and the U.S. will ease its recent economic restrictions. Trump also indicated that the threats against Chinese students will be suspended. As I argued prior to the talks, though Trump’s aides often see anti-China measures as desirable in their own right, Trump sees them as leverage to be abandoned if they succeed in squeezing concessions from the other side.
Notably, the rare earth export licenses China plans to issue will have a limited validity of six months. This reflects two consequential lessons Beijing has taken from the last six months attempting to deal with Trump.
First, coercive measures are necessary. For months prior to “liberation day,” Beijing sought to open negotiations, suggesting a range of issues on which China could offer concessions and seeking to establish an interlocutor with a reliable line to Trump. Instead, Trump hit China with a 10 percent tariff increase in February and another 10 percent increase in March. Trump claimed the tariffs were punishment for inadequate Chinese efforts to suppress the shipment of chemicals used in manufacturing fentanyl.
Chinese leaders resented this rationale since they had already begun joint efforts with the Biden administration on fentanyl. Nonetheless, Beijing declined sharp retaliation. In both February and March, it instead offered new proposals meant to address Trump’s stated concerns on fentanyl and designed to get discussions going. The administration declined to respond to both proposals.
When Wang Yi — the top foreign policy official in both the Foreign Ministry and the Chinese Communist Party — was in New York to chair a U.N. Security Council meeting in mid-February, China sought a meeting with either Secretary of State Marco Rubio or then-national security adviser Mike Waltz. Washington refused, saying Wang is not powerful enough and demanding instead a meeting with Xi Jinping’s close aide Cai Qi.
With liberation day, Beijing abandoned this solicitous approach and instead retaliated with equivalent tariff increases as well as non-tariff measures like the rare earths export licensing system.
Trump was furious, posting: “CHINA PLAYED IT WRONG, THEY PANICKED - THE ONE THING THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO DO!” But as the trade war spun out of control, it was Trump who soon started looking nervous, insisting that Xi Jinping would be the one to call him to de-escalate the situation.
In the end, the two sides managed to convene the Geneva talks and step back from the abyss without ever revealing who had called whom first. But the lesson was clear: Trump finally agreed to talk only after China defied him and imposed some real pain.
The second lesson is more specific: Beijing’s ability to restrict the export of rare earth elements gives it tremendous leverage over Trump. The dogged insistence of Trump’s negotiators at Geneva that He Lifeng agree to loosen the restrictions and Trump’s own desperation as the restrictions started to bite unmistakably communicate the power China now wields.
Trump’s unresponsiveness to Beijing’s initial outreach and then his decision to launch into a confrontation without adequate preparation have thus left U.S. vulnerabilities exposed and seemingly place the U.S. at a disadvantage in future talks. But one unexpected outcome of this predicament might actually be productive discussions.
After all, China’s actions and statements indicate a persistent if frustrated desire to pursue an agreement to reduce tensions in the relationship. The stumbling block has been Trump’s mercurial impulses and destabilizing search for leverage over China. If China exercises its advantage with restraint — using it to keep the U.S. at the negotiating table rather than to exact concessions — it might finally find its way past those obstacles. Perhaps Trump’s own awareness of vulnerability will encourage him to allow serious talks to proceed. Confrontation is unlikely to satisfy his desire to exert strength, but wringing a good deal out of Beijing still could.
Yet underlying geopolitical tensions could fatally threaten such hopes. In particular, Trump’s Pentagon has been issuing foreboding indications of coming conflict. In recent weeks Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made a number of overwrought statements hyping the idea that China could soon invade Taiwan. A leaked copy of the department’s Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance points to a strategy focusing U.S. military might against China. If Trump, perhaps seeking new sources of leverage or simply distracted with other matters, allows such a strategy to go forward, the delicate prospects of dealmaking will collapse into menacing acrimony.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: www.youtube.com/@aljazeeraenglish
Last night President Donald Trump acknowledged that his administration knew about the Israeli attacks on Iran. This morning on Truth Social he suggested that it was part of a plan to get Tehran to accept a nuclear deal and if they do not comply now, "it will only get worse."
"Certain Iranian hardliner’s spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE."
Israelcarried out air strikes against targets in Iran’s capital city, Tehran, in the early hours of Friday morning local time. As of 10 PM EST, reports were coming in that strikes had killed at least four top Iranian officials, along with commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Hossein Salami.
Two prominent nuclear scientists Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoun Abbasi were killed when Israel attacked their homes, according to Iran state television. Other civilians were killed in Tehran, according to the New York Times, but explosions were reported in other areas of the country, too, specifically locations housing Iran's nuclear facilities and military bases, including Natanz, Kermanshah, Isfahan, Arak and Tabriz.
The spokesman of Iran’s Armed Forces, Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi, said on state television that Israel and the United States will “recieve a forceful slap” and Iran’s Armed Forces would be retaliating with counterstrikes. “A retaliation attack is definite, God willingly," he said.
In a statement released by the White House shortly after the first reports of the attacks surfaced, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was not involved in the attacks.
“Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran,” according to the statement. “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.”
Later, Fox News reported an exclusive interview with Trump following the strikes. From Fox's Jennifer Griffin: "President Trump was aware of the strikes beforehand. There were no surprises, but the US was NOT involved militarily and hopes Iran will return to the negotiating table (with Iran)"
Trump reportedly told Fox's Brett Baier, "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see."
Trump is watching for any retaliation, and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is on high alert, Griffin said late Thursday. "He noted that the U.S. is ready to defend itself and Israel if Iran retaliates."
But by Friday morning the outlines of a more coordinated plan were coming into view, as Trump suggested on social media that he not only knew about the strikes but they were being used to coerce the Iranians into his preferred bargaining position in talks that until yesterday appeared to be going in a generally positive direction.
His chief Iran negotiator, Steve Witkoff, was scheduled to meet with Iran’s foreign minister on Sunday for a sixth round of talks on a possible deal that would curb Tehran’s nuclear program. The sticking point, of course, is whether Iran would be allowed to maintain its own civilian enrichment program. The Israelis and their hardline supporters in the U.S. have been adamant that their entire nuclear program should be destroyed.
Nevertheless, Trump has been saying all week — and the media has been reporting it — that he's been telling Israel to stand down on any planned attacks.
“I told [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] this would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “Now, that could change at any moment. It could change with a phone call. But right now, I think they want to make a deal. And, if we can make a deal, (it would) save a lot of lives.”
The strikes also came only a day after the U.S. started evacuating its embassies in the Middle East and started allowing voluntary departures of military dependents from its bases and facilities there. At the time, no reason other than safety was given, though Trump ominously said Wednesday night that the Middle East "could be a dangerous place."
After his comments over the last several hours the question of whether the U.S. would intervene if and when Iran retaliates appears to be moot.
After the bombs started dropping, the preeminent pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAIC), called for Washington to support Israel's fight on X: “America must stand with our ally as it takes action to protect its families from the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
Others suggest this was all part of an elaborate plan to strike Iran from the very beginning. "President Trump’s deception campaign against Khamenei and the Islamic Republic will take its place as one of the most effective ever run by a political leader," declared Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel think tank based in the U.S.
Meanwhile, leading Democrats began coming out hard against the strikes before night's end, but before Trump's most recent comments. "Israel’s alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence," said Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) who added "military aggression of this scale is never the answer."
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who sits on the foreign relations committee, said the attacks were "clearly designed to scuttle the Trump Administration's negotiations with Iran."
"A war between Israel and Iran may be good for Netanyahu’s domestic politics, but it will likely be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region. As Secretary Rubio stated, the United States was not involved in today's strikes, and we have no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe."
Meanwhile, Republican hawks were already envisioning the need for an American military response. After saying "game on" when the reports of the first strikes were coming in, Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) said in a social media post that "People are wondering if Iran will attack American military personnel or interests throughout the region because of Israel’s attack on Iran’s leadership and nuclear facilities," he wrote.
"My answer is if they do, America should have an overwhelming response, destroying all of Iran’s oil refineries and oil infrastructure putting the ayatollah and his henchmen out of the oil business."
Referring to comments from Trump and other administration officials that Israel acted alone, Adam Weinstein, deputy director of the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute said, "Denying direct involvement in the attacks doesn’t change that Washington knew about them and this may be interpreted by Tehran was complicity which could put U.S. troops in the region at risk.”
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.