Logo

TRUMP’S PRIVATE ADVISER: THE UNFILTERED TRUTH BEHIND THE CRISIS

TRUMP’S PRIVATE ADVISER: THE UNFILTERED TRUTH BEHIND THE CRISIS

Có thể là hình ảnh về Phòng Bầu dục

Former President Donald Trump is facing renewed scrutiny following reports that conversations with his son-in-law and former White House adviser Jared Kushner may have influenced how the administration interpreted Iran’s intentions during a period of rising tensions.

According to remarks attributed to Trump in recent discussions about the origins of the conflict, he suggested that Kushner’s assessment contributed to his belief that Iran might be preparing hostile actions against the United States. The comment has fueled debate about the internal decision-making process inside the administration.

In most administrations, major national security decisions are guided by extensive intelligence briefings and recommendations from agencies such as the CIA, the Defense Department, and the National Security Council. These institutions are responsible for analyzing threats and advising presidents on diplomatic and military options.

Critics say Trump’s reference to Kushner’s views raises questions about whether informal advisers held significant influence over policy decisions involving Iran. Kushner served as a senior White House adviser during Trump’s presidency and was closely involved in Middle East diplomacy.

Officials familiar with past discussions say that during the same period, some diplomats believed negotiations with Iran might still produce a stronger nuclear agreement than previous deals. However, they warned that reaching such an agreement would require additional time and sustained diplomatic engagement.

Those briefings reportedly highlighted several complex issues surrounding the negotiations, including disagreements among negotiators, overlapping global crises, and the need for technical expertise from nuclear and regional specialists during talks.

At the same time, regional tensions were rising, and the timeline for diplomatic decisions was becoming increasingly compressed. Reports suggested that the administration faced pressure to quickly determine whether negotiations could succeed or whether other options should be considered.

Supporters of the administration argue that Kushner played a key role in several diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East and maintained close contact with regional leaders. They say his involvement was part of a broader effort to reshape U.S. policy in the region.

The episode underscores ongoing debates in Washington about how foreign policy decisions are made and the balance between formal intelligence processes and informal advice from trusted political allies. Analysts say those questions are likely to remain central to discussions about the administration’s approach to Iran.

Comments (0)

Loading comments...

U.S.-NATO Rift Over Strait of Hormuz Raises Questions About Alliance’s Future
U.S.-NATO Rift Over Strait of Hormuz Raises Questions About Alliance’s Future Under mounting pressure from the United States and President Donald Trump, NATO allies are facing a critical question: whether to commit forces to secure the Strait of Hormuz—or risk deepening fractures within the alliance. Tensions between Washington and its partners in NATO have intensified amid U.S. calls for support in safeguarding the Strait of Hormuz, as conflict in the Middle East escalates. Roots of the Dispute U.S. President Donald Trump (right) and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (Photo: NATO). Iran’s targeting of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz—a vital corridor that carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply—has driven up energy prices, putting pressure on both the U.S. and global economies. In an initial appeal on March 14, Trump urged countries including China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom to deploy naval assets to help secure the waterway, according to CNN. A day later, he escalated his rhetoric, warning that NATO could face “a very bad future” if allies fail to assist in reopening the strait. “It is entirely reasonable that countries benefiting from this passage contribute to ensuring nothing bad happens there,” Trump told the Financial Times, adding that a lack of support “would be very bad for NATO’s future.” Allies Push Back European leaders have largely rejected Trump’s call for NATO involvement. A spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the conflict “has nothing to do with NATO,” emphasizing that the alliance is designed for territorial defense and lacks a legal basis for such a deployment. The United Kingdom echoed that stance. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said plainly: “This is not, and has never been considered, a NATO mission.” Starmer stressed that Britain would “not be drawn into a wider war,” though he noted ongoing discussions with the U.S. and regional partners about the potential use of mine-clearing drones already deployed in the area. Other allies have taken similar positions. Greece and Italy have ruled out participation, while Lithuania and Estonia have called for further clarification. Following the muted response, Trump said on March 17 that he was not surprised and accused NATO allies of making a “serious mistake.” “We no longer need, nor do we want, NATO’s assistance. In fact, we never did,” he wrote on Truth Social, adding that the U.S. does not require help from allies such as Japan, Australia, or South Korea. What Comes Next? The Strait of Hormuz (Photo: SANA). European economies are already feeling the strain of disruptions tied to the Strait of Hormuz. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said gas prices have risen 50% and oil prices 27% since the conflict began. In just 10 days, European consumers have spent an additional €3 billion ($3.44 billion), she said. Despite economic and political pressure, analysts say NATO is unlikely to deploy forces to the region anytime soon. Charles Hecker of the Royal United Services Institute told Deutsche Welle that European nations are reluctant to commit troops due to the risk of becoming targets. Trump has specifically called on France and the U.K. to participate, but Hecker said both are unlikely to engage while active hostilities continue. “They are not ready to join U.S. military operations in the Strait of Hormuz and likely won’t be in the near term,” he said. Scott Anderson of the Brookings Institution described the situation as a “high-risk quagmire,” with concerns extending to potential domestic security threats. According to Anderson, European involvement may only come after active combat subsides, possibly in the form of maritime security or mine-clearing operations. Questions also remain about Washington’s next move, including whether the Trump administration could consider withdrawing from NATO. Analysts cited by Barron's say that scenario is unlikely. For now, NATO appears to be seeking a balance—easing tensions with Washington while avoiding immediate deployment. On March 18, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said allies are consulting on the best course of action. “From what I understand, allies are working together and discussing how to proceed and what the best solution is,” Rutte said. Another Vessel Ablaze in the Strait Separately, satellite imagery showed thick smoke rising from the Malta-flagged container ship Safeen Prestige as it drifted in the Strait of Hormuz, CNN reported on March 19. A container ship ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz on March 18 (Photo: European Space Agency). Images from the European Space Agency showed the vessel about 4.5 nautical miles northeast of Ra’s Makhbūq, Oman. The ship was reportedly struck by an “unidentified object” on March 4, causing a fire in its engine room, according to the U.K. Maritime Trade Operations agency. All crew members were safely evacuated. A warning issued by Pakistan National Hydrographic Office on March 18 said the vessel remained on fire.