Catégorie oBox : OBOXMA

Trump, Netanyahu Differences Surface During Iran Strategy Phone Call as the very unpopular Iran war reportedly took a toll between Trump and Netanyahu in a recent phone call as the U.S. and Israeli leaders do not seem to be on the same pace for how to proceed in the next step of the Iran war. The growing divide surfaced after days of conflicting public messaging from Trump about whether Washington was preparing a massive new military escalation or attempting to reopen negotiations with Tehran. According to multiple reports surrounding the call, Netanyahu was pushing for more aggressive military action while Trump appeared increasingly hesitant about launching another major operation after months of costly regional fighting. The disagreement reportedly emerged while pressure continues to build inside both countries over the political and military consequences of the war.

The phone call reportedly came after Trump backed away from a planned renewed attack against Iran despite issuing a public warning only hours earlier on Truth Social. Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: «For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!» The message immediately fueled speculation that the White House was preparing another major military strike alongside Israel after weeks of mounting tensions across the region. However, Trump later appeared to soften his position dramatically. «I have been asked by the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to hold off on a planned attack on Iran scheduled for Tuesday since serious negotiations are now taking place… In their opinion, as Great Leaders and Allies, a Deal will be made.» The sudden shift reportedly surprised several Israeli officials who had expected Washington to fully support another coordinated operation.

According to CNN and several regional reports, Trump’s decision to halt what was described as an imminent military offensive known internally as «Operation Sledgehammer» frustrated Netanyahu and members of Israel’s war cabinet who reportedly viewed the operation as a crucial opportunity to further weaken Iran’s military infrastructure. The planned offensive allegedly involved a large-scale series of joint U.S.-Israeli strikes targeting missile storage sites, drone facilities and military command centers inside Iran. Israeli officials reportedly believed the recent degradation of Iranian air defenses created a rare strategic opening for another wave of attacks. Netanyahu has repeatedly argued publicly that sustained military pressure is necessary to stop Iran from rebuilding its missile and drone capabilities following months of fighting that already destabilized large parts of the Middle East.

The growing divide between the two leaders also emerged after Trump spent weeks signaling that the Pentagon should remain ready for a broader regional conflict if diplomacy collapsed. Trump previously stated that he had ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to remain prepared for what he described as a potential «large-scale assault» if negotiations with Iran failed to produce results. Yet since announcing the delay of the planned attack, Trump has remained noticeably quieter about direct military action against Tehran. Several analysts in Washington interpreted the shift as a sign that the White House is increasingly worried about the economic and political consequences of another major escalation, particularly after reports detailing billions of dollars in military losses and mounting instability across energy markets following Operation Epic Fury.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has continued emphasizing the need for stronger military action against Iran despite growing international calls for de-escalation. During recent remarks following Israeli security consultations, Netanyahu stated that Israel would continue acting «with strength against those who seek our destruction.» Israeli defense officials reportedly fear that any pause in military operations could allow Iran to regroup and accelerate efforts to rebuild damaged missile and drone infrastructure. Iranian officials, however, claimed that the growing disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem reflects increasing pressure on the United States to avoid another prolonged conflict in the region. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently declared that Iran would not negotiate «under threats or military intimidation,» while state media in Tehran portrayed Trump’s decision to delay the operation as evidence that American leadership feared a broader regional confrontation.

«For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!»

-U.S. President, Donald Trump on Truth Social

The apparent disagreement between Trump and Netanyahu comes at a politically difficult moment for both leaders as public frustration over the Iran war continues to grow. Recent polling in the United States has shown declining support for deeper military involvement in the conflict, particularly as operational costs rise and questions continue surrounding the long-term objectives of the campaign. Israeli officials also face increasing domestic pressure after months of sustained regional fighting and repeated missile alerts across the country. Despite the tensions revealed by the latest phone call, both governments publicly continue insisting that the U.S.-Israel alliance remains strong. Behind the scenes, however, reports surrounding Operation Sledgehammer and the abrupt suspension of the planned attack appear to have exposed a growing strategic divide over whether the next phase of the Iran conflict should focus on diplomacy or renewed military escalation.

Operation Epic Fury Cost U.S. 42 Aircraft to be completely destroyed or damaged according to a new report from Congress. «On February 28, 2026, the United States, in coordination with Israel, initiated military operations against Iran under the designation Operation Epic Fury» wrote the report in the introduction to the document released online. «The conflict has involved air, maritime, and missile combat engagements across the Middle East.» The report added that «The pace of combat activity declined amid a ceasefire in April. Within weeks, some strikes resumed, and conditions remain fluid.» The Congressional Research Service assessment immediately drew attention in Washington because of the scale of the losses outlined in the document, which assembled information from Pentagon statements, U.S. Central Command releases and multiple published reports. Lawmakers reviewing the report raised concerns over the long-term impact on American airpower readiness, especially as tensions with Iran continue despite the temporary ceasefire reached earlier this year.

The congressional document also criticized the Department of Defense for failing to provide lawmakers with a full accounting of the losses linked to the operation. «The Department of Defense (DOD, which is “using a secondary Department of War designation,” under Executive Order 14347 dated September 5, 2025) has not published a comprehensive assessment of combat losses in OEF.» The wording was interpreted by several analysts in Washington as a direct criticism of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Pentagon leadership over transparency surrounding the operation. The report stated that lawmakers were forced to rely on fragmented military statements, press reports and CENTCOM disclosures to piece together a broader picture of the campaign. Members of Congress have increasingly questioned whether the Pentagon deliberately minimized the scale of losses sustained during the conflict, particularly after repeated claims from administration officials that Operation Epic Fury had significantly degraded Iran’s military capabilities while limiting American losses.

$29 billion

According to the report, the financial toll of the operation has escalated rapidly as repair and replacement costs continue to increase. «During a May 12, 2026, hearing, Acting Pentagon Comptroller Jules W. Hurst III testified that the department’s cost estimate for military operations in Iran has increased to $29 billion: “A lot of that increase comes from having a refined estimate on repair or replacement costs for equipment.”» The figure includes combat aircraft, drones, refueling tankers and surveillance systems either destroyed or severely damaged during the campaign. The CRS document noted that the final total could eventually climb even higher because several investigations into aircraft incidents remain unresolved and additional operational expenses are still being calculated. Pentagon officials have reportedly begun discussing supplemental funding requests with congressional leaders as concerns grow over the pressure the conflict has placed on maintenance budgets, aircraft procurement programs and reserve inventories already strained by years of military commitments across the Middle East.

Congress assembled a detailed list of «42 fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft» reportedly destroyed or damaged during Operation Epic Fury using what the report described as «news reports and statements by DOD and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).» The aircraft losses outlined in the report included four F-15E Strike Eagle fighter aircraft, one F-35A Lightning II fighter aircraft, one A-10 Thunderbolt II ground-attack aircraft, seven KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling aircraft, one E-3 Sentry airborne early warning-and-control system aircraft, two MC-130J Commando II special operations aircraft, one HH-60W Jolly Green II combat search-and-rescue helicopter, twenty-four MQ-9 Reaper drones and one MQ-4C Triton surveillance drone. Several of the incidents reportedly occurred during high-risk combat rescue missions after American aircraft were hit over Iranian territory. Other aircraft were damaged during Iranian missile and drone attacks targeting American facilities across the region, including Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.

«During a May 12, 2026, hearing, Acting Pentagon Comptroller Jules W. Hurst III testified that the department’s cost estimate for military operations in Iran has increased to $29 billion: “A lot of that increase comes from having a refined estimate on repair or replacement costs for equipment.”»

-Areport from Congress

Some of the incidents described in the report had already surfaced in earlier media investigations during the conflict. Stars and Stripes reported that a KC-135 refueling tanker crashed in Iraq during the war, killing all six crew members aboard, while another tanker involved in the same incident managed to perform an emergency landing. Business Insider also reported in March that an F-35A Lightning II made an emergency landing at a regional base after returning from combat operations over Iran. CENTCOM spokesperson Capt. Tim Hawkins stated at the time that the aircraft landed safely and that an investigation had been launched into what officials described as a possible combat-related incident. Other reports referenced in the congressional assessment alleged that three F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft were lost in a friendly fire incident involving Kuwaiti air defenses, although U.S. military officials have not publicly confirmed every detail surrounding those claims.

The growing list of losses has intensified debate in Washington over the strategic cost of Operation Epic Fury and the future of American military involvement in the region. CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper told lawmakers during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the operation severely weakened Iran’s military infrastructure. «I would assess that the drone and missile force will take years to reconstitute,» Cooper testified. «[Iran’s] navy likely will not get back to its previous size for a full generation.» Iranian officials, meanwhile, argued that the aircraft losses demonstrated the vulnerability of advanced American military systems during sustained combat operations. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reacted to the congressional findings by claiming that Iran had become «the first country to shoot down an F-35 fighter jet.» While the Pentagon has not publicly confirmed that assertion, the congressional report has already fueled renewed political scrutiny over the real cost of the campaign and whether additional military escalation against Iran could place even greater strain on American forces in the months ahead.

Putin received a lavish welcome in Beijing only days after Donald Trump concluded his first visit to China since 2017, as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin used the occasion to publicly showcase the depth of their alliance amid intensifying geopolitical tensions with Washington. The carefully staged ceremonies at the Great Hall of the People highlighted the symbolic importance of the Russian leader’s two-day visit on May 19 and 20, which Chinese officials framed as another milestone in the countries’ “special strategic partnership.” Xi emphasized the historic nature of the relationship by noting that this marked Putin’s 25th visit to China. «This is President Putin’s 25th visit to China, which fully reflects the high level and special nature of China-Russia relations», Xi said during the opening ceremony attended by senior officials from both governments.

The summit unfolded immediately after Trump’s “working visit” to Beijing on May 17 and 18, where the American president sought to stabilize trade relations and reopen security discussions following years of economic confrontation between the two powers. Observers described Trump’s meetings with Xi as pragmatic and business-oriented, lacking the elaborate symbolism attached to previous state visits. In contrast, Putin’s arrival was marked by military honors, an official banquet, and a public display of personal warmth between the two leaders. During their meeting, Putin addressed Xi by saying, «My dear friend. We are truly delighted to see you. We keep in constant touch, both personally and through our aides in the government.» Xi responded with a poetic remark that quickly circulated across Chinese and Russian media coverage of the summit: «One day apart feels like three autumns have passed.»

«There is a danger of fragmentation of the international community and a return to the « law of the jungle ».»

-A joint statement released by Xi and Putin

The discussions between Xi and Putin extended beyond diplomatic symbolism and focused heavily on expanding cooperation in defense, education, healthcare, and economic development. Officials from both countries described the talks as “successful and fruitful,” with agreements signed covering scientific exchanges, medical research collaboration, and increased military coordination. The visit also included a high-profile photo exhibition in Beijing dedicated to decades of Russia-China relations, intended to reinforce the narrative of long-term strategic trust between the neighboring powers. Putin used the occasion to invite Xi to Russia in 2027 for future commemorative events tied to bilateral relations and historical anniversaries. Chinese state media presented the visit as evidence that Moscow and Beijing remain aligned despite continued Western sanctions against Russia and ongoing pressure from the United States on both governments.

A major focus of the summit was the increasingly confrontational rhetoric directed at what both governments describe as Western dominance over the global order. In a lengthy joint statement released after their meetings, Xi and Putin warned against what they characterized as unilateral pressure tactics and the destabilizing effect of sanctions imposed by Western nations. The declaration included a direct criticism of the international environment shaped by U.S. foreign policy, stating that «there is a danger of fragmentation of the international community and a return to the ‘law of the jungle’». The phrase was widely interpreted as a response to Washington’s use of tariffs, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure against rivals including China and Russia. Chinese and Russian officials argued that such policies weaken international institutions and contribute to geopolitical instability across multiple regions.

The timing of Putin’s visit carried additional significance because it followed so closely after Trump’s meetings with Xi, creating a diplomatic contrast that analysts across Asia and Europe immediately highlighted. Trump’s trip focused primarily on trade disputes, semiconductor restrictions, and military tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, while Putin’s visit emphasized ideological alignment and long-term strategic cooperation. Although Beijing publicly insisted it seeks stable relations with Washington, Chinese officials simultaneously used the Putin summit to demonstrate that China retains strong alternatives to Western partnerships. Russian state media framed the visit as proof that attempts to isolate Moscow following years of conflict with the West had failed. Analysts noted that the visual imagery surrounding the summit, including the ceremonial welcomes and public exchanges between the leaders, appeared designed to reinforce that message to international audiences.

«This is President Putin’s 25th visit to China, which fully reflects the high level and special nature of China-Russia relations.»

-President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping

Beyond the geopolitical messaging, the summit also reflected the increasingly personal relationship between Xi and Putin after more than a decade of regular meetings and coordinated diplomacy. Both leaders repeatedly emphasized continuity, mutual trust, and long-term cooperation throughout the visit. Xi described the relationship as resilient despite international tensions, while Putin praised China’s role as one of Russia’s closest strategic partners. The highly choreographed nature of the visit contrasted sharply with the more restrained tone surrounding Trump’s earlier meetings in Beijing and underscored the different priorities shaping China’s relations with Washington and Moscow. As competition between major powers continues to intensify, the Beijing summit signaled that China and Russia intend to deepen their partnership further while presenting themselves as a united front against what they view as Western-led pressure on the international stage.

Elon Musk suffered a major legal defeat on May 18 after a California jury ruled that he waited too long to sue OpenAI and its executives over the company’s transition from a nonprofit research organization into a multibillion-dollar artificial intelligence giant. The unanimous verdict was delivered in federal court in Oakland after less than two hours of deliberation. Jurors concluded that Musk’s claims fell outside California’s statute of limitations, meaning the case was dismissed without the jury ever considering whether OpenAI or its executives had actually violated the company’s founding principles.

The lawsuit represented one of the most high-profile legal battles in the rapidly expanding artificial intelligence industry. Musk accused OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman and company president Greg Brockman of betraying the organization’s original nonprofit mission by transforming OpenAI into a profit-driven corporation closely tied to Microsoft. Musk argued that he donated roughly $38 million to OpenAI under the belief that the company would prioritize artificial intelligence safety and research for the benefit of humanity rather than commercial gain. He sought approximately $150 billion in damages along with the removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership positions.

Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.

There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026

Big win for OpenAI

The ruling represents a major victory for OpenAI as the company continues to position itself for potential public trading, which analysts believe could eventually value the organization at nearly $1 trillion. OpenAI lawyers argued throughout the trial that Musk had long known about discussions surrounding a for-profit structure and that his lawsuit was motivated more by competition than principle. The defence repeatedly pointed to Musk’s own artificial intelligence company, xAI, as evidence that he was attempting to slow down a rival organization rather than protect OpenAI’s original mission. OpenAI’s legal team also argued that Musk himself previously pushed for aggressive expansion and greater control over the company during its early years.

The cliques of Silicon Valley

The courtroom battle exposed years of internal conflict and personal animosity between some of Silicon Valley’s most influential technology figures. Testimony throughout the trial revealed disagreements over money, governance and the future direction of artificial intelligence development. Lawyers representing Musk repeatedly accused Altman of dishonesty and self-enrichment, while OpenAI’s attorneys portrayed Musk as increasingly resentful after losing influence within the organization he helped co-found in 2015. Several former OpenAI employees also testified during the proceedings, with some criticizing Altman’s leadership style and questioning the company’s commitment to transparency and safety as artificial intelligence technology became increasingly commercialized.

Musk officially left OpenAI in 2018 following internal disputes regarding governance and strategy. Since then, the relationship between Musk and Altman has deteriorated significantly as OpenAI became one of the world’s most valuable and influential artificial intelligence companies following the release of ChatGPT. Musk has repeatedly warned that artificial intelligence poses an existential threat to humanity and has accused OpenAI of abandoning its original mission focused on safe and transparent research. OpenAI executives countered during the trial that enormous funding requirements made a traditional nonprofit structure unrealistic, particularly as competition intensified among major artificial intelligence developers globally.

Musk to appeal

Despite the legal defeat, Musk’s lawyers immediately announced plans to appeal the ruling. However, legal analysts suggested an appeal may face serious challenges because the jury’s decision was based primarily on factual questions regarding timing rather than broader legal interpretation. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers reportedly noted after the verdict that overturning a unanimous jury finding on statute-of-limitations grounds would likely be difficult. The ruling also cancelled a previously scheduled hearing that would have considered potential remedies against OpenAI had Musk succeeded in court. OpenAI executives celebrated the verdict privately while preparing to continue the company’s aggressive commercial expansion and fundraising efforts.

The verdict marks another major legal setback for Musk during an increasingly turbulent period for the billionaire entrepreneur. Earlier this year, a separate jury found Musk liable for misleading investors during aspects of his acquisition of Twitter, though he avoided some broader fraud allegations in that case. Meanwhile, Musk continues balancing leadership roles at Tesla, SpaceX, xAI and X while remaining deeply involved in political controversies and global technology competition. The OpenAI case may have ended in defeat for Musk, but the broader debate over AI safety, corporate power, and the future governance of AI development remains far from resolved as the industry continues to expand at an extraordinary pace.