{"id":81272,"date":"2026-03-18T00:01:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-18T06:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.opinionpublica.tv\/portada\/?p=81272"},"modified":"2026-03-17T19:39:58","modified_gmt":"2026-03-18T01:39:58","slug":"america-alone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.opinionpublica.tv\/portada\/america-alone\/","title":{"rendered":"America, alone"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"America,<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Trump is frustrated with countries that have declined his call to \u201ccome and help us\u201d reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He mocked them yesterday: \u201cWe would rather not get involved, sir,\u201d Trump said, imitating what he says he hears from world leaders \u2014 even though, he points out, Europe, Japan and others depend on oil from the Persian Gulf far more than the United States does.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Europe, in particular, has no great wish to be drawn into America\u2019s conflict. It\u2019s not those countries\u2019 fault that Iran closed this vital maritime artery, driving up prices for cargo and oil worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is not our war; we did not start it,\u201d Boris Pistorius, Germany\u2019s defense minister, said yesterday, calling for a diplomatic solution instead. Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain said that his country \u201cwill not be drawn into the wider war\u201d with Iran. The French foreign ministry said much the same. And the Polish foreign minister said that his nation had also \u201cruled out\u201d sending forces into the conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They\u2019re caught in a bind, Michael Shear reports: Do nothing as prices surge and voters struggle to make ends meet \u2014 or join the fight and invite retaliation from Iran and its proxies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the White House, Trump said the obstinacy of U.S. allies was exactly why he sneered at protecting other countries. \u201cIf we ever needed help,\u201d he observed angrily, \u201cthey won\u2019t be there for us.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The anger presidency<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That tracks. Operation Epic Fury is accurate branding for the war, Peter Baker writes. By the president\u2019s own description, everything he does is epic \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s one (epic) paragraph of Peter\u2019s analysis:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anger defines Mr. Trump\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A lack of clarity<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s 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\u2019s objectives, much less when the war might end, writes Zolan Kanno-Youngs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ve already \u201cwon\u201d the war, Trump has said. But the United States should not leave until it finishes the \u201cexcursion,\u201d as he\u2019s called it. And he doesn\u2019t need allies for that. \u201cWe don\u2019t need anybody,\u201d Trump said yesterday, even as he called for other nations to help take up the task of securing the Strait of Hormuz. He\u2019s hopping mad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe lack of discipline and the lack of clarity strongly suggest that the administration was simply unprepared for the messaging aspects of this conflict,\u201d one historian told Zolan. \u201cThe likelihood is that the demands are ambiguous because the administration does not know what its goals are beyond winning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And you can see how that\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even some of Trump\u2019s more influential supporters are slipping. \u201cHe ran on no more wars; end these stupid, senseless wars,\u201d the podcast host Joe Rogan said. \u201cAnd then we have one that we can\u2019t even really clearly define why we did it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n