分类： politics

Tensions in the Middle East have reached a new boiling point after the United States launched a naval operation to enforce a blockade of the strategic Strait of Hormuz on Monday, paired with an unprecedented tariff threat targeting third-party countries that supply weapons to Iran. The escalation has drawn a firm response from China, which has called for both Washington and Tehran to return to diplomatic negotiations to de-escalate the crisis.

The tariff threat expanded to China in mid-April, when then-U.S. President Donald Trump warned of a 50% punitive tariff on Chinese goods over unconfirmed reports that Beijing planned to deliver air defense systems to Tehran. The move represents a clear escalation of Washington’s strategy to cut off external support for Iran and extend pressure to other major trading partners that maintain normal economic ties with the Islamic Republic.

Chinese analysts widely view the dual campaign of military blockade and tariff threats as a deliberate act of extreme pressure aimed at forcing Beijing to align its policy with U.S. demands and push Iran into concessions on key negotiating issues. They note that after failing to secure breakthroughs either through military confrontation or diplomatic talks, the U.S. has increasingly turned to unilateral trade measures and coercive tariff threats to gain strategic leverage.

“Trump has shifted tactics. The White House wants to combine military pressure alongside Israel and use tariffs to cut off Iran’s external lifelines,” said Da Bao, a Henan-based political commentator, referring to Iran’s critical crude oil export revenue that flows through trade with China. He added that the U.S. warning against Chinese arms shipments is less about enforcing international norms and more about setting a precedent to weaponize tariffs amid regional conflicts. “What counts as military equipment today? Drone components? Semiconductors? Maintenance services? Today it’s weapons, tomorrow it could be technology, then financing. This is just an expansion of political coercion,” Da Bao explained. He also argued that deploying tariffs as a strategic tool in an active conflict reflects the U.S.’s declining ability to mobilize allied consensus and growing difficulty resolving disputes through targeted, traditional measures.

Ming Yue, a Hebei-based analyst, pushed back on the U.S.’s unsubstantiated claims of Chinese weapons supplies to Iran. She pointed out that China is Iran’s second-largest import source, with bilateral trade hitting $9.96 billion last year, and that Chinese exports to Iran consist primarily of industrial machinery, electrical goods, auto parts, textiles and metal products – not tanks, missiles or ammunition. She added that U.S. media and officials have deliberately mislabeled legitimate, routine economic cooperation between Beijing and Tehran as military support to frame China as a destabilizing actor, a move aligned with U.S. domestic political and electoral priorities.

On the economic impact of additional tariffs, Ming Yue noted that China has already diversified its export markets to the European Union and ASEAN, meaning new U.S. tariffs would have only limited economic impact. Instead, she argued, most tariff costs would ultimately be passed to American consumers and businesses, while U.S. firms with deep supply chain exposure to China, such as Apple and Tesla, would face disrupted production and lost revenue. She also observed that the public has grown accustomed to the pattern observers have dubbed “TACO” – short for “Trump Always Chickens Out” – where threats are dramatically escalated then partially rolled back later.

The current crisis follows a turbulent sequence of diplomatic and military moves in early April. After Trump threatened massive military strikes that would push Iran back to the “Stone Age” if it did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a 14-day provisional ceasefire between the U.S., Iran and Israel was reached in the final 90 minutes before Trump’s April 7 deadline, raising tentative hopes of de-escalation that was set to expire on April 21. But just one day after the ceasefire took effect, Israel launched large-scale airstrikes across Beirut, the Bekaa Valley and southern Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem. The strike killed Qassem’s nephew and personal secretary, Ali Yusuf Harshi, failing to eliminate the Hezbollah leader but escalating tensions on the Lebanese front.

On April 11, U.S. Vice President JD Vance held 21 hours of negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Islamabad, Pakistan, aimed at forging a long-term ceasefire. The talks collapsed without agreement: Washington demanded that Tehran abandon its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and halt all nuclear weapons-related development, as well as accept a U.S.-Iran joint management framework for the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian negotiators rejected both proposals, and insisted any ceasefire deal must cover Lebanon amid ongoing Israeli strikes on Hezbollah – a condition Washington failed to enforce on its ally.

Chinese analysts argue the provisional ceasefire was a deliberate trap set by the U.S. and Israel to reset pressure on Iran while preserving military leverage, noting Tehran would never have accepted the pause if it had known Israel would immediately launch strikes on Lebanon. Lao Ge, a Guangdong-based commentator, drew parallels to ancient Chinese military wisdom from *The Commentary of Zuo*, which notes that a fighting force loses momentum if it pauses before securing its goals: the first push is strong, the second weaker, the third exhausted. He outlined three core strategic risks Iran faces from the ceasefire trap: first, it loses mobilization momentum, as wartime urgency shifts to public relief that erodes deterrence and national resolve; second, it puts key ally Hezbollah in an impossible position – if Iran intervenes to support the group, it is blamed for breaking the ceasefire, but if it holds back, Hezbollah is gradually weakened by ongoing Israeli strikes; third, reopening the Strait of Hormuz surrenders Iran’s strongest bargaining chip, stabilizes global oil markets, and gives the U.S. time to reinforce its military presence in the region. “Tehran would have been better off maintaining pressure despite U.S. threats and even limited infrastructure damage than losing its core ally in Lebanon,” Lao Ge argued.

Qin Tian, deputy director of the Institute of Middle East Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), confirmed the Strait of Hormuz is the decisive stake in the current standoff. “For Iran, the Strait is one of the most effective tools in its confrontation with the U.S. and Israel, and a core national security asset,” Qin said. “Tehran should use this leverage to secure meaningful concessions from the U.S. side.” He added that competition between Washington and Tehran for control over the waterway will only intensify in the coming weeks.

As of Monday, the U.S. has expanded its blockade operation into the Gulf of Oman, targeting vessels linked to Iranian trade while claiming to allow neutral shipping to pass unimpeded. U.S. Central Command has issued warnings that any vessels entering the restricted zone risk interception, underscoring the large scale of the operation. U.S. officials also confirmed they have begun mine-clearing operations in and around the Strait after reports of Iranian naval mine deployments that disrupted a large share of global oil flows, noting that reopening full shipping lanes will be slow and carry operational risks. The operation has already pushed global oil prices above $100 per barrel, drawing public criticism from NATO allies who oppose the blockade’s disruptive impact on global energy markets.

China has issued a formal response to the escalating crisis. Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, emphasized that the Strait of Hormuz is a critical global trade and energy route, and maintaining its safety, stability and open access serves the shared interests of the entire international community. “The root cause of the current disruption is the ongoing military conflict. To resolve the issue, hostilities must end as soon as possible, and all parties must maintain calm and exercise maximum restraint,” Guo said, adding that China will continue to play a constructive role in advancing diplomatic talks.

Chinese Defense Minister Admiral Dong Jun issued a firmer warning to Washington, cautioning against the Strait of Hormuz blockade and rejecting any U.S. interference in normal bilateral relations between Beijing and Tehran. “China has legitimate trade and energy agreements with Iran, and we expect other parties not to interfere in our sovereign affairs,” Dong said, noting that the Strait of Hormuz remains open to Chinese commercial shipping in line with international law.

BEIJING – In a high-profile bilateral meeting held in the Chinese capital Tuesday, the top leaders of China and Spain have formally committed to expanding collaborative partnerships and upholding multilateral governance, against a backdrop of rising global instability marked by ongoing regional conflicts including the recent hostilities in Iran. Chinese President Xi Jinping made the remarks during an official reception for visiting Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.

During the address, Xi emphasized the urgency for the two nations to ramp up high-level communication, solidify cross-border mutual strategic trust, and advance close practical cooperation. He also underscores the need to push back against a growing global shift toward the law of the jungle, where power alone dictates outcomes, and work collectively to protect what he described as genuine, inclusive multilateralism.

Sánchez, for his part, aligned fully with Xi’s position, noting that both nations are well-placed to drive progress in solving the world’s most pressing challenges. From persistent trade frictions to tangled geopolitical complexities, from active armed conflicts to escalating environmental and social inequities, the prime minister noted that China and Spain can play a pivotal role in forging collaborative, forward-looking solutions.

This visit marks Sánchez’s fourth trip to China in a little more than three years, a frequency of high-level engagement that underscores Spain’s strategic interest in deepening ties with the world’s second-largest economy. Spain is currently seeking to expand both political dialogue and commercial exchange with Beijing. The trip also comes amid growing diplomatic friction between Madrid and Washington, rooted in Sánchez’s public opposition to the recent war in Iran.

As a new U.S. naval blockade of Iran entered into force Monday and a fragile two-week ceasefire between the two sides remained largely intact, former U.S. President Donald Trump claimed Tehran is urgently pushing to reach a negotiated agreement with his administration.

Speaking to reporters outside the Oval Office while receiving a McDonald’s delivery via DoorDash, Trump asserted that Iranian officials had reached out through backchannels to signal their desire for a deal. “I can tell you that we’ve been called by the other side. They’d like to make a deal. Very badly, very badly,” he told the press corps.

High-stakes indirect negotiations between U.S. and Iranian delegations hosted in Islamabad, Pakistan, wrapped up over the weekend without a final agreement. But multiple current and former U.S. and Arab officials confirmed to Middle East Eye that both parties remain committed to the negotiating process. Reuters further reported Monday that diplomatic backchannels are still active, with Pakistan continuing to serve as an intermediary for communications between Tehran and Washington.

According to sources familiar with the talks, discussions were at times tense, and the two sides came close to agreeing to a broad framework for a final deal. Three core sticking points scuttled a breakthrough: disagreements over Tehran’s nuclear program, competing claims to control over the Strait of Hormuz, and disputes over the amount of frozen Iranian assets that would be unlocked under any agreement.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif confirmed Monday that diplomatic efforts are continuing, saying, “I want to tell you that a full effort is still on to resolve the issues.” Despite the lack of progress in Islamabad, the 14-day ceasefire that went into effect ahead of talks has held, with no major armed clashes reported as of Monday.

When pressed by reporters on what would happen if no deal is reached before the ceasefire expires, Trump issued a blunt warning: “It won’t be pleasant for them.” This is not the first time the former president has issued sharp threats against Iran; he previously drew widespread international criticism for threatening to destroy Iranian civilization before walking back the comment.

Monday marked the official launch of the U.S. naval operation aimed at breaking what the Trump administration frames as Iran’s restrictive control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint. The Wall Street Journal reported that at least 15 U.S. warships are participating in the blockade. Speaking to reporters, Trump laid out the current state of play: “Right now there’s no fighting…We have a blockade. Right now, Iran is doing absolutely no business.”

Iran’s control of the strait has emerged as the most intractable strategic conflict between the two sides, and a core sticking point in the ongoing negotiations. Tehran currently allows its own vessels to transit the waterway, alongside select ships from Russia, China, India and Pakistan, while blocking most vessels registered to Western countries. One of Iran’s key demands in talks is the establishment of a formal transit toll system for the strait, with payments potentially denominated in Chinese yuan or cryptocurrency. Maritime experts consulted by Middle East Eye note that Iran has a logistically feasible path to implementing such a system at the global energy chokepoint.

Trump has framed the blockade as an economic pressure tactic designed to force concessions from Iran by cutting off the country’s oil export revenue. But independent energy and security experts warn the move could backfire on the U.S., triggering a sharp spike in global energy prices and escalating the risk of open armed conflict between the two countries.

In response to the U.S. blockade, Iranian military officials have pushed back hard. An Iranian military spokesperson called any restrictions on Iranian shipping equivalent to “piracy,” and warned that if Iranian ports come under threat, Tehran would retaliate by targeting Arab Gulf ports. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps further stated that any foreign military vessels entering restricted waters near the strait would be considered a violation of the ongoing ceasefire.

U.S. military deployments signal the Biden administration (continuing Trump’s policy) is moving cautiously to avoid escalation. U.S. Naval Institute News reports that the U.S. aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush is rerouting its journey to the Middle East around Africa and the Cape of Good Hope, rather than taking the shorter route through the Mediterranean Sea and Red Sea. This detour avoids the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and keeps the carrier out of missile range of Yemen’s Houthi movement, which is aligned with Iran and has previously disrupted shipping in the strategic waterway.

While Trump has repeatedly bragged about “obliterating” Iran’s navy and air defense systems in past confrontations, he acknowledged Monday that Iran’s fleet of small fast-attack craft could pose a meaningful threat to U.S. surface vessels operating in the northern Indian Ocean. He doubled down on his warning to Iran in a post on social media, writing: “Warning: If any of these ships come anywhere close to our BLOCKADE, they will be immediately ELIMINATED, using the same system of kill that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea. It is quick and brutal.”

On a Monday morning at 10 a.m. U.S. Eastern time, the Trump administration enacted a sweeping military blockade across all of Iran’s ports and coastal waters, a major escalation of ongoing hostilities between the two nations that has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets and drawn sharp criticism from U.S. NATO allies. Under the current terms of the blockade, commercial vessels may continue transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical chokepoint for global oil trade, so long as their journeys do not involve travel to or from Iranian ports.

The success of the blockade hinges entirely on the U.S. military’s ability to counter Iranian attempts to disrupt international shipping through the strait. So far, Tehran has effectively deterred commercial tanker traffic through the region more through psychological pressure than direct attacks, but the new blockade sets the stage for open military confrontation at sea. Iran retains a large fleet of missile-armed small attack craft, split between the regular Iranian Navy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, that can be deployed to harass or attack passing vessels. Estimates place the total number of these small speedboats alone between 3,000 and 4,000, with an additional 133 larger patrol and combat vessels also in Iran’s inventory. When the U.S. launched earlier large-scale military operations against Iranian military assets, President Trump noted that American forces focused their strikes on Iran’s larger surface combatants and submarines — leaving the bulk of the small attack craft fleet intact. There remains ongoing uncertainty about the location of Iran’s Kilo-class submarines supplied by Russia. Now, U.S. forces are tasked with locating and eliminating every one of these small vessels, a mission that military analysts warn will require significant time, firepower, and operational resources to complete.

Military analysts point to the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the U.S. Air Force’s iconic close-air support aircraft, as the most effective and low-risk platform for this mission. The A-10’s 30mm Gatling gun, which fires armor-piercing depleted uranium ammunition, can easily destroy even small, fast-moving vessels, and the jet can deploy low-cost laser-guided rockets for precision strikes. Unlike faster fighter jets, the A-10 is purpose-built for low-altitude, long-duration patrols over maritime environments, making it far more cost-effective for countering small boat threats. However, only around 30 A-10s are currently deployed to the Middle East, drawn from two Air National Guard squadrons: the 107th Fighter Squadron out of Michigan’s Selfridge Air National Guard Base and the 190th Fighter Squadron based at Idaho’s Gowen Field. Each squadron retains just 6 to 9 additional A-10s back in the U.S. that could be deployed, creating a critical gap in firepower for the mission.

The solution to this shortfall is already available, analysts argue: dozens of fully operational A-10s recently retired by the Air Force are stored in the aircraft “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona. In the 2025 fiscal year alone, the Air Force retired between 56 and 59 airworthy A-10s, all retaining their full operational equipment and ready to be reactivated. While recalled pilots would require a short transition period to return to flying the aircraft, this process could be completed rapidly if the Trump administration prioritizes the move. Reactivating all stored A-10s would triple the size of the A-10 fleet in the Gulf region, expanding it from 30 to more than 90 aircraft, dramatically increasing U.S. capability to neutralize Iran’s small boat force.

Yet there is a major barrier to this plan: the U.S. Air Force has spent years pushing to retire the entire A-10 fleet to reallocate funding to newer fifth-generation fighter jets, and analysts expect service leaders to mount aggressive resistance to reactivating stored aircraft. This creates a major test for the Pentagon and the Trump administration, which has traditionally deferred to military leadership on equipment and deployment decisions. Analysts warn that allowing the Air Force to block A-10 reactivation would severely undermine U.S. efforts to enforce the blockade and secure control of the Strait of Hormuz.

The strategic goal of the blockade is clear: to cripple Iran’s economy to the point that the regime either accepts U.S. negotiating terms or collapses under domestic pressure. Leading economic warfare analyst Miad Maleki, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, calculates that the blockade will cost Iran approximately $276 million per day in lost export revenue and disrupt an additional $159 million in daily imports, for a total economic hit of around $435 million per day, or $13 billion per month. More than 90% of Iran’s total annual trade, valued at $109.7 billion, transits the Persian Gulf, and oil and gas exports account for 80% of the Iranian government’s export earnings and 23.7% of the country’s total GDP. Iran’s primary oil export terminal at Kharg Island alone generates roughly $53 billion annually in export revenue.

Maleki projects that the blockade will trigger a total collapse of Iran’s currency, the rial, pushing the country into irreversible hyperinflation. Even before the blockade, the rial has already crashed from 42,000 rials per U.S. dollar to 1.5 million rials per dollar. Iranian banks currently limit civilian cash withdrawals to between $18 and $30 per day, and national inflation already sits at 47.5%. Eliminating all of Iran’s foreign currency earnings from exports, Maleki argues, will push the rial into terminal collapse. The ultimate outcome of the Trump administration’s strategy is binary: either the Iranian regime will be forced to capitulate to U.S. demands for a new nuclear and security deal, or widespread economic hardship will spark a social revolution that the current government cannot suppress.

As global oil prices have already surged past $100 per barrel in response to the blockade, NATO allies have openly criticized Trump’s decision, warning that the escalation poses severe risks to global energy security and economic stability. The speed and success of the U.S. mission to secure the Strait of Hormuz, analysts emphasize, will hinge on the administration’s willingness to overcome Air Force resistance and rapidly reactivate the stored A-10 fleet needed to neutralize Iran’s small boat threat.

Speculation around Philippine President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s physical fitness has been making the rounds on public and social media in recent weeks, fueling unconfirmed whispers that the country’s leader was struggling with undisclosed health issues. Rather than dismissing the claims through a formal written statement or allowing the rumors to spread unchecked, Marcos took an unorthodox, direct approach to put the speculation to rest: he showcased his physical stamina by performing star jumps in a gym setting, and extended an open invitation to any critic who doubts his health to join him for a workout. The bold, confrontational move marks a rare moment of personal engagement from a sitting head of state responding to public gossip, turning a question about personal health into a public display of readiness for the demands of his office. Political analysts note that the stunt not only addresses immediate health concerns but also projects an image of vigor and confidence to voters and political opponents alike, at a time when public perception of leadership stability carries significant weight in Philippine politics.

A politically charged firestorm erupted this week after former and current U.S. President Donald Trump shared an AI-generated image depicting him as a messianic, Jesus-like healing figure — a post that quickly drew widespread backlash across religious and political lines, forcing Trump to remove it within 24 hours. The controversial post came on the heels of a bitter public feud between Trump and Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope in history, who has openly condemned Trump’s policy positions, including U.S. support for ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East and hardline immigration crackdowns.

After deleting the image, Trump offered a confusing explanation to reporters at the White House, claiming he believed the graphic depicted him as a doctor affiliated with the Red Cross. “It’s supposed to be me as a doctor making people better. And I do make people better. I make people a lot better,” he told reporters. However, the widely circulated image leaves no room for ambiguity: it shows Trump draped in a flowing robe, with glowing hands hovering over the forehead of a man lying unconscious in a hospital bed. Across both Christian and Islamic religious traditions, Jesus Christ is revered as a figure with the divine power to heal the sick, making the depiction explicitly messianic.

Criticism poured in immediately from across the political and religious spectrum, starting with leading Democratic lawmakers. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders took to social media platform X to condemn the incident, tying it to Trump’s ongoing conflict with the pope. “Trump is now attacking the Pope for speaking out against war while posting images of himself as a messianic figure,” Sanders wrote. “This is not only offensive. It is deranged, egomaniacal behavior. When will Republicans in Congress stop blindly following this dangerous and unhinged man?” Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern, the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee and a practicing Catholic, called the image “outrageous, offensive, and profane,” adding “clearly he is not well. As an American, a Catholic, a human – I am disgusted.” The Democratic National Committee’s official account tagged top Catholic and evangelical Republican leaders including Senate Republican JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, asking for public comment.

Notably, most sitting congressional Republicans remained silent through the first 36 hours of the controversy, even as high-profile former GOP members and religious conservative groups broke with Trump. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the former Georgia congresswoman who has fallen out of Trump’s favor after facing primary pressure from his allies, issued a blunt condemnation on X: “I completely denounce this and I’m praying against it!!!” Former Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger, another ex-Republican lawmaker who clashed with Trump, called on Christians of all denominations to speak out. “Jesus Christ is not a meme. His image is not a political tool. His name is not a brand,” Kinzinger wrote. Carrie Prejean Boller, a former Trump supporter and anti-abortion Catholic who was ousted from Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, went further, saying “Trump is not only a blasphemer but he is a liar. No Christian can support Trump or his administration. Speak now or be complicit in evil.” Even a traditionally pro-Trump Catholic group, Knights Templar International, which backed Trump in both the 2016 and 2024 elections, issued a full-throated rebuke, calling the image deeply offensive and demanding a public apology to upset Christian communities. Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly also joined critics, reposting a comment dismissing Trump’s Red Cross doctor explanation that read “He thinks you’re so stupid.”

A small handful of pro-Trump commentators defended the post, however. Hardline right-wing commentator Laura Loomer argued that the U.S. does not recognize blasphemy as a legal offense, and told offended critics to “move to a Muslim country” if they opposed the depiction. International actors also waded into the controversy. Iran’s embassy in South Africa, which has regularly mocked Trump’s policies since the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, made a sarcastic reference to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in its comment, asking “Is it Epstein being cared for in the Healing Ministry of Trump?” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian issued a formal condemnation, saying “the desecration of Jesus (peace be upon him), the Prophet of peace and brotherhood, is unacceptable to any free person.”

The AI image controversy was preceded by a harsh public attack from Trump against Pope Leo XIV, who has become one of the most prominent global critics of Trump’s foreign and domestic policy. Shortly before sharing the image Sunday, Trump posted a tirade against the pope on his social media platform, criticizing Leo’s stances on crime and foreign policy, and attempting to drive a wedge between the pope and his brother, a supporter of Trump’s MAGA movement. “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. He talks about ‘fear’ of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart. I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA,” Trump wrote. He added bluntly: “I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States.”

Pope Leo has previously spoken out against multiple Trump administration policies, including the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, the Israeli military campaign in Lebanon, and Trump’s harsh crackdown on undocumented immigrants within the U.S. Just days before the feud erupted, the Archbishop of Washington DC Cardinal Robert McElroy delivered a fiery anti-war sermon at a peace mass, calling on Christians to move beyond prayer and actively advocate for an end to conflicts. “As citizens and believers in this democracy that we cherish so deeply, we must advocate for peace with our representatives and leaders. It is not enough to say we have prayed. We must also act… our president will move to reenter this immoral war,” McElroy said. “No. Not in our name. Not at this moment. Not with our country.” Multiple cardinals also confirmed their opposition to Trump’s war policies in an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes Sunday. Last week, a Catholic publication revealed that the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S. had been summoned to the Pentagon earlier this year and reprimanded by a senior U.S. official, who told the envoy the U.S. government would act with no constraint on the global stage.

Speaking to reporters Monday, Pope Leo pushed back against Trump’s attacks, reaffirming his commitment to spreading the Gospel message of peace. “I have no fear of the Trump administration or speaking out loudly of the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the Church is here to do,” the pope said. “We are not politicians. We don’t deal with foreign policy with the same perspective he might understand it, but I do believe in the message of the Gospel, as a peacemaker.”

The incident has already had electoral ripple effects ahead of the November 2026 U.S. midterm elections. The Iraqi Christian Foundation issued a public call for U.S. Catholics to vote against Trump’s Republican Party, writing on X “We call on all Chaldean Catholics & other Catholics in the USA to vote against the Republicans or abstain from voting in the 2026 elections. We stand with Pope Leo XIV!” Support for the pope extended globally across religious lines, with prominent Muslim leaders and organizations also backing Leo. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammed Ghalibaf wrote “Honoring Pope Leo’s fearless stand! He condemns the war crimes of Israel and the US… thank you for this light!” The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the U.S., issued a statement saying it stands in solidarity with the pope, noting that “Between denigrating the pope, portraying himself as Jesus (peace be upon him), and sarcastically praising Allah, the president’s mockery of religion is both deranged and insulting.” Controversial Muslim-American influencer Sneako, who has more than one million followers on X, added: “We stand with the Pope and the beautiful religion of Catholicism. Trump is committing the greatest act of blasphemy. If you love America, condemn this evil immediately.”

A prominent pro-Israel advocacy organization has upended longstanding U.S. policy orthodoxy around American military support for Israel, with J Street announcing in a new policy document released Monday that it is calling for an immediate end to direct, U.S. taxpayer-funded military assistance to the Jewish state.

For years, J Street positioned itself as a moderate pro-Israel voice that backed unrestricted U.S. provision of free defensive military systems to Israel, including ongoing replenishments for the country’s Iron Dome air defense network. The group’s new framework marks a sharp break from that prior stance: under the updated policy, J Street now argues the U.S. should continue to sell Israel short-range air defense and ballistic missile defense capabilities — but Israel must cover the full cost of these acquisitions with its own public funds.

In justifying the historic policy shift, J Street pointed to Israel’s robust economic and financial standing. “Israel faces real security challenges that require a significant defense investment. With a per capita GDP comparable to leading U.S. allies such as the United Kingdom, France and Japan, as well as an annual defense budget of over $45 billion, it has the financial means to address these challenges,” the group wrote. “It does not require almost $4 billion per year in U.S. financial subsidies to purchase weapons.”

J Street added that continuing the current model of unrestricted direct aid is both fiscally unnecessary and politically damaging, fueling avoidable tensions in U.S. domestic politics and straining bilateral ties between Washington and Jerusalem. Under the existing structure of U.S. military assistance, American taxpayer dollars are allocated to Israel, which is then required to spend those funds on defense equipment manufactured by U.S. weapons contractors.

J Street defines its core mission as organizing pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy American voters to advance U.S. policies aligned with shared Jewish and democratic values, with the goal of securing Israel’s future as a democratic Jewish homeland. The group’s support base is heavily concentrated within the Democratic Party, whose broader base has seen a rapid shift in attitudes toward Israel amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

The policy change comes amid a dramatic reevaluation of U.S. support for Israel across the American political landscape, driven by shifting public opinion following more than 10 months of war in Gaza that has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials. For J Street specifically, the shift closely tracks the changing trajectory of the Democratic Party, where progressive voters and elected officials have increasingly pushed for cuts to military aid over humanitarian and human rights concerns.

Earlier this month, high-profile progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York — who is widely speculated to be preparing a run for higher national office — announced she would no longer vote for any U.S. military support for Israel, reversing her prior position of backing defensive weapons transfers in a move that aligned with growing demands from her progressive base. Notably, Ocasio-Cortez’s announcement followed a surprise revelation from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year, when he declared that Israel would not seek to renew its current military aid package with the U.S. when it expires in 2028. “I want to taper off the military aid within the next 10 years,” Netanyahu told *The Economist* in January, “all the way down to zero.”

J Street’s new policy mirrors a key provision of Ocasio-Cortez’s stance, requiring that all future arms sales to Israel — which the country pays for with its own funds — must be “fully consistent with American law.” U.S. statute prohibits security assistance to any country whose government engages in a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations, or that blocks or restricts the delivery of U.S.-funded humanitarian aid to civilian populations.

“U.S. arms sales to Israel should be further conditioned to incentivize alignment with American interests and laws — as has been the case with other allies and partners — when their behavior is inconsistent with U.S. interests,” J Street wrote. The group stopped short of cutting all security ties with Israel, however, emphasizing that the U.S.-Israel alliance delivers tangible benefits to American national security.

J Street noted that Washington and Jerusalem broadly share core strategic interests, writing: “The U.S. also benefits meaningfully from the relationship. Intelligence sharing has been critical in campaigns such as the fight against ISIS, while joint operations such as Israel’s 2006 strike on Syria’s secret nuclear facility have advanced shared security goals.” With roughly 500,000 American citizens residing in Israel, the group added that continued, conditional arms sales to Israel remain a legitimate U.S. national security priority.