Trump Rebukes Israel and Iran Hours After Ceasefire
By Google | Global Affairs Correspondent
June 24, 2025 — Washington, D.C.
In a surprise and sharply worded statement released just hours after a fragile ceasefire was brokered between Israel and Iran, former U.S. President Donald J. Trump condemned both nations for what he described as “weakness, indecision, and betrayal of national interest.” The remarks, issued via his social media platform Truth Social, have sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles and reignited debates over America’s role in Middle Eastern affairs.
The ceasefire, announced late Monday evening by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, marked the first direct agreement between the two regional adversaries following months of escalating tensions that included cyberattacks, covert operations, and limited military strikes. The truce came after intense mediation efforts led by Qatar, Oman, and the European Union, with indirect support from Russia and China.
But within minutes of the announcement, Trump took to his platform to denounce the agreement, calling it “a surrender dressed up as peace” and accusing both sides of capitulating under pressure rather than standing firm.
“Israel has shown weakness by agreeing to this deal instead of finishing the job. And Iran? They’ve been let off the hook again. It’s like watching Obama all over again — giving concessions without getting anything real in return.”
The former president also criticized the Biden administration for its handling of the crisis, suggesting that had he been in office, the situation would not have reached such a boiling point — and that any resolution would have favored American allies more decisively.
A Fractured Consensus
Trump’s comments immediately polarized political figures, foreign policy analysts, and international observers. Some praised his bluntness, saying it reflected a hardline realism sorely missing from contemporary diplomacy. Others dismissed his remarks as reckless and out of touch with modern geopolitical realities.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a longtime Trump ally, echoed the former president’s concerns during a press briefing Tuesday morning.
“We should be supporting our allies unconditionally. Appeasement never works. If you give Iran an inch, they’ll take a mile. This ceasefire may look good on paper, but it does nothing to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions or stop their aggression in the region.”
Conversely, Democratic leaders were swift to condemn Trump’s intervention.
“This kind of rhetoric only fuels division and undermines global stability,” said Senator Chris Coons (D-DE). “A ceasefire brokered through multilateral diplomacy is a step toward de-escalation, not something to be mocked.”
Internationally, the reaction was mixed. While some countries welcomed the ceasefire as a rare moment of progress in an otherwise volatile region, others expressed concern that Trump’s criticism could embolden hardliners on both sides and jeopardize the fragile peace.
Historical Context: Trump’s Middle East Legacy
To understand the significance of Trump’s rebuke, one must revisit his tenure as president and the policies he implemented regarding the Middle East.
During his time in office, Trump adopted a staunchly pro-Israel stance, moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, cutting aid to the Palestinian Authority, and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018. He argued that the agreement, negotiated under the Obama administration, failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program or its regional activities.
Trump’s approach earned praise from many conservative and evangelical voters in the U.S., as well as from right-wing Israeli politicians. However, critics argued that his unilateral actions destabilized diplomatic efforts and pushed Iran further into defiance.
Now, nearly five years after leaving office, Trump remains a powerful voice within the Republican Party and among his base. His ability to shape public opinion — particularly on matters of foreign policy — continues to influence political discourse.
The Ceasefire: What Was Agreed?
The agreement, reached after weeks of backchannel negotiations, includes several key provisions:
- Immediate cessation of hostilities : Both Israel and Iran agreed to halt all military operations against each other.
- UN monitoring mechanism : A temporary UN-led mission will oversee compliance with the ceasefire.
- Economic incentives : Western powers have pledged financial assistance to Iran in exchange for halting uranium enrichment above 5% purity.
- Security guarantees : Gulf states have reportedly offered assurances to Israel regarding Iranian military presence near its borders.
Despite these terms, the agreement lacks enforceable mechanisms and does not include provisions for inspections or verification beyond the initial phase. Moreover, Iran has not formally acknowledged direct involvement in attacks on Israeli interests, a sticking point for many analysts.
Why Trump Disapproves
Trump’s disapproval centers around three main arguments:
1. Israel Should Have Fought Harder
Trump believes that Israel — backed by U.S. military technology and intelligence — should have pursued a decisive victory rather than settling for a negotiated ceasefire.
“You don’t win wars by talking. You win them by striking hard and fast. If I were president, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
His supporters argue that Israel missed an opportunity to cripple Iran’s military infrastructure before it could fully develop advanced weaponry. Critics, however, note that a full-scale war could have drawn in multiple regional actors, including Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia, potentially spiraling into a wider conflict.
2. Iran Got Off Too Easy
Trump has long maintained that Iran cannot be trusted with any concessions unless forced to comply under duress. He views the ceasefire as another example of the West caving in to Tehran’s demands without extracting sufficient guarantees.
“They smile when they sign deals and laugh behind your back. They’re playing us again. That’s exactly what happened with the JCPOA.”
Indeed, since the expiration of the original nuclear deal, Iran has resumed enriching uranium at higher levels and expanded its centrifuge program. Yet, the current agreement limits enrichment once more, albeit temporarily.
3. America’s Role Is Being Undermined
Perhaps most importantly, Trump laments what he sees as a diminished U.S. role in shaping Middle Eastern outcomes.
“Where was the United States in these talks? We used to lead. Now we follow.”
While the Biden administration participated in peripheral discussions, the primary negotiations were led by non-Western mediators. Trump interprets this as a sign of declining American influence and a shift toward multipolarity dominated by China, Russia, and regional powers.
Reactions From Around the World
Israel
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who authorized the ceasefire, responded cautiously to Trump’s criticism.
“Our goal was to protect our people and prevent a broader war. We did what was necessary.”
However, internal divisions are growing. Far-right lawmakers accused the government of “surrendering to terrorism,” while centrist voices urged restraint and called for diplomatic engagement.
Iran
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed Trump’s comments as “predictable and irrelevant.”
“The former president has always preferred chaos to dialogue. We remain committed to peace and stability in the region.”
Still, hardliners within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reportedly opposed the ceasefire, fearing it would weaken their leverage against Western-backed regimes.
United States
Domestically, Trump’s comments reflect broader divisions within the GOP over foreign policy. While some Republicans align with Trump’s hawkish stance, others advocate for a more restrained approach.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a Trump loyalist, supported the former president’s critique.
“He’s absolutely right. Diplomacy without strength is appeasement. We need leadership that puts America and our allies first.”
Meanwhile, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley struck a more moderate tone.
“Ceasefires are rarely perfect, but they can buy time for better solutions. We should be encouraging dialogue, not undermining it.”
Analysis: Is Trump Still Influencing Foreign Policy?
Trump’s continued influence over U.S. foreign policy — despite being out of office — raises important questions about the nature of political power in the digital age. With millions of followers and a dedicated media ecosystem, Trump can shape narratives and sway public opinion on critical issues.
Experts warn that this phenomenon could complicate future administrations’ ability to conduct diplomacy.
“When a former president can undermine a sitting administration’s foreign policy from outside office, it creates confusion and weakens credibility,” said Dr. Sarah Klein, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University.
She added, “It’s a new era where diplomacy isn’t just done in boardrooms — it’s shaped on social media by individuals with massive platforms.”
Implications for the 2024 Election
With the U.S. presidential election less than six months away, Trump’s remarks are likely to become a flashpoint in the campaign.
If Trump secures the Republican nomination — which polls suggest is highly probable — his positions on Israel, Iran, and global engagement will form a core part of his platform.
Democrats, meanwhile, face a challenge in framing their response. President Joe Biden, now in his second term, has positioned himself as a defender of multilateralism and diplomacy. But with rising voter fatigue over foreign entanglements, his team must walk a fine line between defending the ceasefire and addressing concerns about American leadership.
The Road Ahead
Whether the ceasefire holds remains uncertain. Past agreements have collapsed under similar circumstances. Yet, the fact that Israel and Iran — bitter enemies with no formal diplomatic ties — agreed to even pause hostilities marks a significant development.
Trump’s criticism, while controversial, underscores a broader ideological divide in U.S. foreign policy: Should America act unilaterally and assertively, or engage diplomatically and collaboratively?
As the world watches closely, one thing is clear — the debate over how best to secure peace in the Middle East is far from over.