Trump is frustrated with countries that have declined his call to “come and help us” reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He mocked them yesterday: “We would rather not get involved, sir,” Trump said, imitating what he says he hears from world leaders — even though, he points out, Europe, Japan and others depend on oil from the Persian Gulf far more than the United States does.
But Europe, in particular, has no great wish to be drawn into America’s conflict. It’s not those countries’ fault that Iran closed this vital maritime artery, driving up prices for cargo and oil worldwide.
“This is not our war; we did not start it,” Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense minister, said yesterday, calling for a diplomatic solution instead. Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain said that his country “will not be drawn into the wider war” with Iran. The French foreign ministry said much the same. And the Polish foreign minister said that his nation had also “ruled out” sending forces into the conflict.
They’re caught in a bind, Michael Shear reports: Do nothing as prices surge and voters struggle to make ends meet — or join the fight and invite retaliation from Iran and its proxies.
At the White House, Trump said the obstinacy of U.S. allies was exactly why he sneered at protecting other countries. “If we ever needed help,” he observed angrily, “they won’t be there for us.”
The anger presidency
That tracks. Operation Epic Fury is accurate branding for the war, Peter Baker writes. By the president’s own description, everything he does is epic — the most, the biggest, the best. And Trump is certainly driven by fury. Anger is at the heart of much of his work. He chose the name himself.
Here’s one (epic) paragraph of Peter’s analysis:
Anger defines Mr. Trump’s decade on the political stage. Anger at foreigners who come to this country and change its nature. Anger at allies who take advantage of America. Anger at Democrats who cross him. Anger at Republicans who cross him. Anger at appointees he deems insufficiently loyal. Anger at prosecutors, F.B.I. agents, judges, journalists, law firms, elite universities, cultural figures, corporate leaders, pollsters, central bankers and the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
A lack of clarity
It’s easy to understand why the war has begun to grate on the president. Trump and his cabinet still have not been able to articulate the administration’s objectives, much less when the war might end, writes Zolan Kanno-Youngs.
We’ve already “won” the war, Trump has said. But the United States should not leave until it finishes the “excursion,” as he’s called it. And he doesn’t need allies for that. “We don’t need anybody,” Trump said yesterday, even as he called for other nations to help take up the task of securing the Strait of Hormuz. He’s hopping mad.
“The lack of discipline and the lack of clarity strongly suggest that the administration was simply unprepared for the messaging aspects of this conflict,” one historian told Zolan. “The likelihood is that the demands are ambiguous because the administration does not know what its goals are beyond winning.”
And you can see how that’s playing out in public opinion, with most polls showing less than half of Americans supporting the war. Zolan reminded me that when President George W. Bush sent troops to Afghanistan in 2001, 92 percent of Americans approved.
Even some of Trump’s more influential supporters are slipping. “He ran on no more wars; end these stupid, senseless wars,” the podcast host Joe Rogan said. “And then we have one that we can’t even really clearly define why we did it.”
- Credits: The New York Times
- Author: Sam Sifton
- Image: Samuel Granados and Agnes Chang
