The contrast between the reception of Volodymyr Zelensky and Benjamin Netanyahu upon their visits to the White House was stark. This treatment seems to signal a shift in the Trump administration's international priorities and policy.
Since Friday, global headlines have been dominated by one subject, the fiery White House meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump. Coming amidst recent discussions between the United States and Russia on ending the war in Ukraine, the Oval Office meeting started off on relatively good terms, however, it would not take long before tempers began to flare. In extraordinary scenes, both Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for the extensive U.S. military aid provided to Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian intervention, and of risking a third world war through current Ukrainian policy. Trump stated in no uncertain terms that a Kiev victory was now regarded as an impossibility, and that Zelensky would only be welcomed back to Washington on condition that it was to negotiate an agreement with Moscow. A senior White House official also later revealed to The Washington Post that serious consideration was now being given to ceasing all Ukrainian military aid in the wake of the meeting, a move that would effectively end the conflict overnight.
Both Trump and Vance received widespread praise from conservative commentators following the meeting with Zelensky, with many pointing out that it completely aligned with Trump campaign promises to prioritise US interests and to end the war in Ukraine in a relatively-short time frame - albeit not the 24 hour one as initially envisaged by Trump. Vance in particular was also singled out as having displayed attributes that put him in pole position for electoral victory in 2028. The demeanour of both Trump and Vance in dealing with Zelensky however, as well as the response from supporters of the current US administration, lies in stark contrast to another recent high-profile White House visit.
Three weeks prior to the Zelensky meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became the first head of state to visit the White House amidst the beginning of the second Trump presidency. In an uncharacteristically servile gesture for the former real estate mogul, Trump pulled out a chair out for the Israeli leader to sit down, a far cry from Friday’s public scolding of Zelensky. In further contrast to the themes of ending US foreign aid that marked Zelensky’s visit to Washington, both Trump and Netanyahu then went on to hold a joint press conference outlining plans to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip in line with Israeli policy, and to use US troops to do so. Trump also outlined details of a contingency plan wherein if he was assassinated, Iran was to be ‘obliterated’ in response, a move that would also completely align with Tel Aviv’s geopolitical ambitions.
To understand this contrast in attitude towards Ukraine and Israel, one must look at Trump’s previous campaign donors.
In 2016, when Trump first entered the running for the Republican nomination, one of the then-Presidential hopeful’s key backers was casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam. An arch-zionist, Adelson had described himself ‘one-issue guy when it comes to Israel’, and previously suggested using a nuclear weapon on Iran. Adelson donated $20mn to Trump’s campaign on one condition, that the US Embassy in Tel Aviv be moved to Jerusalem. A move that Trump subsequently followed through with in December 2017. The following year, the Adelsons donated a staggering $113 million to the Republican Party for the 2018 midterm elections. Ten days after those elections, Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Miriam Adelson at a high-profile White House ceremony.
Indeed, it would be Miriam Adelson who would subsequently take the reins of the Adelson business empire following the death of Sheldon Adelson in January 2021. In 2024, when Trump entered the running for the Republican nomination, Adelson once again offered her support, which in a similar manner to 2016, also had a key condition attached.
In return for a $100 million donation towards Trump’s campaign, Miriam Adelson sought White House approval for the formal annexation of the West Bank by Israel, which has occupied the territory since 1967. Having accepted this offer and winning the November election with ease, Trump wasted no time in fulfilling his side of the deal. Within hours of re-entering the Oval Office in January, Trump had signed an Executive Order that saw the rescinding of sanctions placed on Israeli settlers in the West Bank. The following day, Israeli forces launched Operation Iron Wall, intended to ethnically cleanse Jenin and the wider West Bank. Upwards of 40,000 Palestinians have now been expelled from the territory in the past six weeks as a result of the Israeli invasion. This is the largest mass-expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank since 1967. In line with the support from the Trump administration for the current Israeli land grab, Republican staffers have also recently been instructed to refer to the West Bank as ‘Judea and Samaria’ in official correspondence. This was issued in a memorandum by House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chair Brian Mast, who previously volunteered with Israeli forces, and who notably wore an Israeli uniform to Congress in the days following the launch of Al-Aqsa Flood
As well as this tacit support for Israeli expansionism, Trump’s recent fawning over Netanyahu is also likely linked to an impending Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In November, just over a week after Trump’s election victory, the Adelson-owned Israel Hayom outlet featured a report outlining how the incoming US administration had already begun plans to remove the current Iranian leadership. During Trump’s previous term, he ordered the assassination of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike on Baghdad Airport, a highly-provocative act that led to Tehran launching ballistic missiles at the Ain Al-Asad US airbase in response, though just stopped short of developing into a full-scale confrontation between the US and Iran.
Following the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad last December, Iran then became the last remaining country planned to be targeted in a radical US foreign policy implemented after the 9/11 attacks. In February, weeks after Trump’s inauguration, both The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post featured reports outlining how US intelligence officials believe Israel is likely to attack Iran within the first six months of 2025, a move that was also recently encouraged by Israel Hayom. With the White House recently approving billions of dollars in military aid for Israel - something that the Trump administration has shown no indication of suspending, in spite of earlier promises of ending all foreign aid - it would appear that Trump’s rebuff of Zelensky has little to do with ending the ongoing bloodshed in Ukraine, and is instead to lay the groundwork for a future focus on a war with Iran.
Gavin O'Reilly is an analyst from Dublin, Ireland, focusing on geopolitics and globalism. Published in multiple outlets since 2017
Erica Caines, Editor of Hood Communist and Coordinating Committee Member for the Black Alliance for Peace, joins the stream to discuss the New McCarthyism and its implications.
It is disheartening to hear movement leaders say they are inspired by Martin Luther King while also supporting the U.S. proxy war against Russia. Like all wars it endangers the lives of…
The demands for justice at home and abroad must not be sacrificed on the altar of what is called pragmatism. The false choices presented by liberalism can undermine the movement altogether.
A May Day 1928 essay by Black communist Williana “Liana” Jones Burroughs – aka Mary Adams – recounts the history of African revolt in the Americas.
Elon Musk's purchase of the Twitter platform was a hotly debated topic. But neither Musk nor any other individual is the root of the world's problems. Liberalism which pretends to…
