West’s double standards exposed amid talks of Iran-Israel ceasefire: Trump flees G7 summit early

Department of Research, Studies and International News 17-06-2025

In a striking turn of events at the G7 summit in Canada, U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly cut short his attendance and returned to Washington, an exit that coincided with growing discussions surrounding a potential ceasefire between Iran and the Israeli occupation forces. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at the summit, revealed that a proposal to establish a ceasefire had been tabled, with early diplomatic signals indicating Iran’s openness to dialogue, despite Israel’s continued aggression.

“There is indeed a willingness to initiate discussions for a ceasefire and to move toward wider talks,” Macron stated during a press briefing. He referred to the development as a “positive step” and emphasized the urgent need to protect civilians caught in the crossfire. While Macron cautioned that significant change may not occur immediately, he expressed hope that the United States, given its leverage over Israel, could potentially pressure Tel Aviv into halting its military offensive.

Trump, however, attempted to downplay any connection between his sudden departure and the ceasefire discussions. On his social media platform Truth Social, he claimed his return to Washington was for reasons “much bigger than that,” referring vaguely to “obvious reasons.” Yet sources confirmed that Trump had been briefed on Tehran’s interest in de-escalation via intermediaries, hinting at behind-the-scenes maneuvering.

The summit itself, often met with disdain by Trump in previous years, was expected to be dominated by pressure from European leaders over the U.S. stance on Ukraine and global trade tensions. His premature exit conveniently avoided that scrutiny, especially as Gulf nations ramped up efforts to mediate between Washington and Tehran to restore nuclear negotiations, talks that had been suspended following a sudden and provocative Israeli assault on Iranian territory.

In a particularly alarming escalation, Israeli forces issued evacuation warnings to over 300,000 residents in central Tehran, threatening imminent bombings on so-called “military infrastructure.” The tactic mirrored the same psychological warfare methods Israel has employed in Gaza for over 20 months, this time, aimed at the heart of the Iranian capital. These threats, echoed by Trump on social media, intensified panic among civilians. Tehran’s streets quickly emptied; businesses shuttered, and traffic jammed roads leading north to the Caspian region as residents fled.

Iran’s measured response was swift but strategic. Precision missile strikes targeted heavily populated zones in Israeli cities, particularly between Tel Aviv and Haifa. Both sides have exchanged blows on energy facilities, raising fears of environmental disaster, especially after reported explosions near Iranian refineries south of Tehran.

Despite Iran’s insistence on ending the Israeli aggression before any formal nuclear discussions resume, Western officials, especially from France, Germany, and the UK, continued their performative diplomacy. In a joint phone call, the trio urged Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to refrain from escalating tensions or withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a move Iran is now considering given the West’s duplicity and failure to contain Israeli provocations.

Notably, European officials admitted privately that they had little faith in Trump’s ability or willingness to push Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu toward de-escalation. Israel’s current campaign appears aimed at dismantling Iran’s security infrastructure entirely, with the tacit approval, or at least passive complicity, of its Western allies.

Iran has firmly stated that it will not return to nuclear negotiations unless Washington forces Tel Aviv to halt its bombardments. While European leaders feign interest in diplomacy, their unwillingness to confront Israeli aggression lays bare the hypocrisy of their so-called “rules-based international order.”

A late G7 statement called for regional de-escalation yet hypocritically reaffirmed Israel’s “right to self-defense” and labeled Iran as the primary source of “regional instability and terror.” This narrative, repeated often in Western media and political circles, starkly contrasts with the facts on the ground, where it is Iran, not Israel, that is facing unprovoked attacks on its sovereignty and civilians.

Meanwhile, Washington continues to deflect questions about its intentions. Although Israel has openly lobbied for direct U.S. involvement in the assault, both the White House and Pentagon have downplayed the likelihood of immediate American military action. Officially, the U.S. maintains a “defensive” stance, though its failure to restrain Tel Aviv suggests otherwise.

President Macron, diverging slightly from Washington’s hardline posture, warned that using external force to impose regime change in Iran would be a grave strategic mistake. “History shows that bombing a country into submission from the outside has never succeeded,” he said, subtly referencing failed Western interventions in the Middle East over the past two decades.

As the situation evolves, the stark contrast between Western rhetoric and actions becomes increasingly apparent. In a region yearning for stability and peace, it is not Tehran that fans the flames of war, but rather the unchecked militarism of Israel and the moral bankruptcy of its Western patrons.