Trump Rages at Netanyahu in Expletive-Filled Call Over Lebanon

Trump lost his temper. During a phone call brokered in the context of his efforts to mediate a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah — talks he desperately needs to keep alive to protect the ongoing US-Iran nuclear negotiations — he unleashed a profanity-laced tirade at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He accused Netanyahu of ingratitude, ordered a halt to Israeli plans to strike Beirut, and warned that if Netanyahu pressed ahead, Washington would move to further isolate Israel on the international stage.

According to US media, Trump unloads on Netanyahu in expletive-filled phone call: accused him of ingratitude, and threatened to further isolate Israel on the international stage.

According to Axios, reporting on the afternoon of June 1 local time, two US officials and one source who knew about the call revealed what Trump told Netanyahu directly: "You're fucking crazy. You'd be in prison if it weren't for me. I'm saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this." Trump's reference to saving Netanyahu from prison alluded to the support he extended during the Israeli PM's ongoing corruption trial.

A second source familiar with the call added that Trump was "pissed". At one point, he shouted at Netanyahu: "What the fuck are you doing?"

An official described the call as the worst between Trump and Netanyahu since Trump returned to the White House.

One US official noted that Trump understood Hezbollah had been firing at Israel and that Israel had the right to defend itself. But in recent days, he felt Netanyahu had pushed the situation far beyond what was necessary. Beyond the threat to Beirut, Israel had also been expanding its ground operations in southern Lebanon.

Another US official said Trump was deeply concerned about the number of civilians Israel had killed in Lebanon. He objected to Israel demolishing entire buildings just to eliminate a single Hezbollah commander.

Trump and Netanyahu have had several tense calls in the past while still maintaining close coordination on Iran and other issues. But this one was different. One official described it as the worst call between the two since Trump returned to the White House. The fury stems from a clear strategic fear: Netanyahu's escalation in Lebanon risks derailing the US-Iran negotiations entirely. Iran had previously warned it would withdraw from talks with the United States if Israel continued its military operations in Lebanon.

After the call, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, stating that the Iran negotiations were continuing "at a rapid pace", that Israel would not send forces into Beirut, and that Hezbollah had agreed to a ceasefire.

Netanyahu told a different story. In a statement issued after the call, he said he had told Trump that if Hezbollah did not stop attacking Israel, Israel would strike targets in Beirut. He added that military operations in southern Lebanon would continue, and emphasized: "This position of ours remain unchanged." Yet another US official contradicted that account entirely, claiming Trump had in fact "steamrolled" Netanyahu during the call. That official said: "Bibi (Netanyahu) said, 'OK, OK, just make sure everything is taken care of.'"

Earlier, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz had issued a joint statement announcing that, given Hezbollah's "repeated and ongoing violations of the ceasefire," they had ordered the Israeli military to carry out airstrikes on the Dahiyeh district of Beirut. That announcement triggered a sharp reaction from Iran.

Israel escalates its bombardment of Lebanon.

Analysts have noted that the memorandum of understanding currently being negotiated between the US and Iran reportedly contains provisions for ending the conflict in Lebanon — a key source of the recurring friction between Trump and Netanyahu. The White House has not yet confirmed those claims.

The diplomatic fallout is widening fast. A source close to the negotiating team revealed that, in response to Israel's continued military operations in Lebanon and Gaza, the Iranian negotiating team has suspended its dialogue and text exchanges with the United States through intermediaries. Iran is now considering a full blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

In Sidon, a port city in southern Lebanon, rescue workers carry an injured person out of a damaged apartment building struck by an Israeli airstrike.

On the afternoon of June 1 local time, the United Nations Security Council convened an emergency meeting on the Lebanon-Israel situation. Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Fu Cong spoke at the session, stating that the situation had deteriorated sharply. Israel has expanded its military operations in Lebanon and continuously enlarged its so-called "security zone" — crossing the Litani River and occupying Beaufort Castle. This marks Israel's deepest military incursion into Lebanon in over two decades.

The Lebanon-Israel ceasefire has become a "ceasefire in name only." The international community must take urgent action before the situation slides into an even more dangerous abyss. He called on all parties to: immediately achieve a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, and ease tensions; strengthen support for Lebanon to stabilize its domestic situation; and ensure that UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) can fulfill its mandate and safeguard regional stability.

Deep Throat

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

The future belongs to artificial general intelligence (AGI). China and the United States are pursuing different strategies in the contest for global leadership.

But one US national security think tank wants to take the rivalry to an extreme. The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has gone so far as to suggest that Washington consider extreme measures to stop China from achieving AGI first.

CNAS released “Superpowers and AGI” report late last month.

Jacob Stokes, one of the report's authors and a former White House official, called on the US to prepare itself. He listed possible extreme measures, from diplomacy and espionage to cyberattacks and coercive steps. Among them: military strikes on Chinese data centers.

Stokes, one of the authors of the report urged extreme steps, even strikes on Chinese data centers.

CNAS is headquartered in Washington and was founded in 2007. It has long advised the US government on defense, Indo-Pacific and China strategy. Its lean is hawkish.

Late last month, CNAS released a report titled “Superpowers and AGI”. The document reeks of gunpowder. It argues that the race for AGI, and the technology's potential emergence, could profoundly affect US-China competition. It could also heighten the risk of military conflict or catastrophe on multiple fronts.

The Containment Checklist

To that end, the report urges US policymakers to act on several fronts. First, ensure that American resources and technology do not aid China's AI development. Second, establish AI-focused diplomatic channels with allies and with China, so that the potential emergence of AGI is placed on the agenda. Third, develop a technically sophisticated method to track the inputs into AGI and the key performance thresholds of frontier AI systems.

The list goes on. Washington should conduct scenario exercises testing when and how the US should intervene to halt China's AGI development. It should prepare to reverse-engineer or steal the technology should China obtain AGI first. And it should limit and contain the reach of authoritarian digital infrastructure.

The most extreme proposal of all is military strikes. The South China Morning Post reported on 4 September that Stokes, deputy director of CNAS's Indo-Pacific Security Program, addressed an online event on Thursday.

His message was blunt. The US Department of Defense, the National Security Agency and other agencies should begin assessing what intelligence would be needed to justify such operations. That would pave the way for the "hard action" to follow.

The Cold War Playbook

Stokes served as a national security staffer under former US president Barack Obama. In the report he unabashedly lays out a menu of what he calls "diplomatic, espionage, cyber and kinetic measures." Among them are military strikes on the data centers that train and run China's AGI systems. He even touts preventive strikes before China develops AGI at all.

Stokes goes so far as to compare the undertaking to the way "in a past era, policymakers would learn about nuclear weapons." His declared method is to "work backwards from the science to the policy implications."

Citing assessments by research outfit Epoch AI, the report notes that the US currently leads China in advanced AI models by only "months." But it warns that China could pull off an "unexpected technological breakthrough" in fields such as robotics and "embodied AI."

Citing research institute Epoch AI data, the report sees China pulling off surprise breakthroughs.

Notably, Stokes also concedes a gap on the American side. The US government and its intelligence agencies have "not been organised for espionage to gather technological secrets for decades."

"The Height of Recklessness"

Stokes' extreme remarks have drawn questioning within the United States itself. William Hartung, a senior arms and defense budget expert at the Washington-based non-profit Project On Government Oversight (POGO), publicly slammed the report as "the height of recklessness."

Hartung warned that any strike on Chinese data centers would "risk starting a shooting war between two nuclear-armed powers". Such a war could bring tragic consequences for all concerned.

China has consistently maintained that AI should be people-centered and that intelligence should serve the good. Military applications must remain under human control. Beijing opposes turning technological issues into bloc confrontation or weaponry.

Make no mistake: technological competition is no casus belli. When individual American politicians and think-tank figures reach for threats of "military strikes" and "espionage" at every turn, they gravely violate the basic norms of international relations. They also expose a dangerous bid to politicize and militarize technology.