BFox News posted on X that Donald Trump is weighing in on Israel's fight to form a government. He says Gadi Eisenkot and Netanyahu have "very similar views" and both back his policies.
BAnd that's supposed to settle it? Trump's endorsement doesn't crown a prime minister.
BIt doesn't. But when the American president weighs in, people in Israel notice.
BEisenkot is the former IDF chief, now tasked with trying to build a coalition. Netanyahu is the incumbent. They're not exactly allies.
BRight, and Trump says Eisenkot has spoken highly of him. That's a big deal for a candidate who needs right-wing support.
BMy problem is the White House meddling in another country's coalition talks. We'd lose our minds if a foreign leader did that here.
BOh, come on. Presidents comment on foreign elections all the time. It's not meddling, it's diplomacy.
BIt's not just commenting. It's picking a side in a domestic political fight. That can backfire.
BMaybe, but Trump isn't saying vote for Eisenkot. He's just relaying that the guy praised him.
BThe timing is everything. Eisenkot is trying to form a government right now. A nod from Trump is a political weapon.
BSo what? We shouldn't talk to foreign leaders during elections? That's how you lose influence.
BInfluence is one thing. Endorsing a candidate for prime minister is another. That's crossing a line.
BHe didn't endorse. He said they have similar views. That's an observation, not a pick.
BIn Trump world, "he speaks highly of me" is absolutely a pick.
BFine, it's a soft endorsement. But it's also true. Eisenkot has been more hawkish on Iran than Netanyahu lately.
BThat's debatable. But either way, the U.S. should let Israelis sort out their own government.
BWe have a strategic interest in who runs Israel. It affects the whole region.
BI'm not saying ignore it. I'm saying don't take sides publicly before the coalition is formed.
BAnd if Netanyahu wins anyway, that position could look awkward with the winner.
BExactly my point! It's risky for him too. This isn't a game.
BIt's politics. Everything is a game, Brian.
BNot when it's about war and peace.
BSpeaking of wars and peace, Fox News posted that Rubio just poured cold water on a breakthrough with Iran.
BHe says talks have stalled. Tehran's demands are "outrageous and ridiculous."
BThat's the Secretary of State saying it on the record. No sugarcoating.
BWhat does he call unacceptable? Iranian demands he sees as unreasonable?
BHe didn't get specific. Just that they're not close.
BSo we're back to where we were: no deal, no war, just tension.
BThat's the problem. The status quo is dangerous. Either we get a real agreement or we're one incident away from escalation.
BI'd rather have no deal than a bad one that lets Iran keep enrichment.
BThat's exactly the kind of thinking that got us here. No deal means Iran keeps developing, just without inspections.
BAnd a bad deal means they get sanctions relief and still cheat. We've seen this movie.
BSo what's your alternative? Keep squeezing until they capitulate? That hasn't worked either.
BIt got them to the table, didn't it?
BBarely. And now Rubio says it's stalled. So not working.
BMaybe the Iranians are waiting for the U.S. to blink first. That's their playbook.
BWhich is why we can't show desperation. Rubio's tone is right.
BBut calling their demands ridiculous in public might just harden their position.
BSo we should pretend their demands are reasonable? That's how you get a bad deal.
BNo, you keep the criticism private and let the negotiators work.
BThe negotiators haven't worked. That's the problem. Public pressure can help.
BPublic pressure on Iran? They don't care. They're not a democracy.
BThen we're back to military options, which nobody wants.
BI didn't say that. I said we need a deal with real verification, not capitulation.
BSo you agree Rubio is right to call out the ridiculous demands?
BI agree the demands are ridiculous. I just don't think saying so on TV moves the needle.
BAt least he's honest, which is more than we can say for the Iranians.
BDifferent world entirely: The Wall Street Journal posted on X about two former senior Trump advisers.
BThreatening texts and online barbs?
BThat's what they're reporting. We couldn't confirm the details, but the idea of grown adults sending angry texts is kind of funny.
BIf true, it's a new low for the former Trump orbit. This is what happens when access becomes your identity.
BOr maybe it's just two people who can't stand each other and forgot that texts leave a record.
BIf it's in the Journal, someone leaked the texts. The real question is who's leaking.
BGood point. But until we see the actual messages, I'd treat it as gossip.
BAgreed. Unverified, but worth keeping an eye on.