ConflictClarifier

متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 31, 2026

Trump lashes out at Europe for not helping fix the damage his war against Iran has caused

Summary

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump entered his war of choice against Iran without consulting global allies, but as he weighs an exit from the conflict, he is making it clear that he is expecting the world to help him fix the unintended damage that it has caused. Trump is taking an increasingly annoyed tone toward Europe's lack of support for the U.S.-Israeli war effort. He also is giving short shrift to the fact that his decision contributed to disrupting the flow of oil to global markets through the crucial Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has managed to largely choke off even as Trump insists that Iran has been “decimated.” The president started his Tuesday by fuming on social media at two of America's closest allies — France and Britain — while calling on the world to “Go get your own oil!” and “start learning how to fight for yourself.” “All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” Trump posted. Minutes later, he went after France, claiming the country was “very unhelpful” as it “wouldn’t let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory.” Trump's top advisers also are stepping up anti-NATO rhetoric As Trump has ratcheted up his criticism, particularly against NATO allies, for not joining the U.S. and Israel in the war and being slow to respond to its consequences, top members of his administration have followed suit. The dynamic is creating uncertainty and concern over the future of the alliance, whose value Trump has already called into question. While Trump’s often scattershot insults and complaints toward partners and allies have become expected and to a certain extent tolerated, the piling on by top aides like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in recent days has suggested that the administration’s anti-NATO posture is gaining steam — even as the president is showing signs that he could be edging toward finding an exit to the war sooner than later. Hegseth argued Tuesday that the U.S. did “the heavy lifting on behalf of the free world” to deal with the threat from Iran and that other countries that depend on oil normally flowing through the strait should be aware that getting shipping moving is “not just our problem set going forward.” “There are countries around the world who ought be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well,” Hegseth said at a Pentagon news conference. “It’s not just the United States Navy. Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big, bad Royal Navy that could be prepared to do things like that as well.” Trump, in an Oval Office exchange with reporters later Tuesday, said protecting the strait will be up to other countries and estimated that the U.S. would be done launching attacks against Iran in two to three weeks. “That’s not for us," Trump said. "That’ll be for France. That’ll be for whoever’s using the strait.” U.S. investors took Trump's sharp rhetoric in stride, including from an interview with CBS News in which Trump said he's not quite ready to pull back U.S. troops that have massed near the strait but soon will. The S&P 500 surged 2.9% to its biggest gain since last spring, while the Dow industrials advanced more than 2.5% as doubt about a possible end to the war swung back to hope on Wall Street. Nevertheless, the president's criticism, particularly weeks of lashing NATO, has left Europe uneasy about what it might mean for the military alliance, which was already shaken by Trump reducing U.S. military support for Ukraine and threatening to seize Greenland from ally Denmark. NATO allies Spain and France have either forbidden or restricted use of their airspace or joint military facilities for the U.S. for the war. They, along with other nations, have agreed to at least assist in an international coalition that would keep the Strait of Hormuz open once the conflict ends, but the specifics of their involvement and the health of the coalition itself remain unclear. France and the U.K. on Tuesday sought to downplay Trump's rhetorical salvos, with Macron’s office expressing surprise: “France has not changed its position since day one." British Defense Secretary John Healey said the U.S. is a key ally despite criticism from his American counterpart and noted that the U.K. is doing its part to help Gulf nations defend against Iranian attacks. Healey, during a visit to Qatar, announced that the U.K. is sending more missile and air defense systems to Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well as extending the use of its Typhoon fighter jets in Qatar. “The U.S. is a uniquely close ally to the U.K.,” Healey said. “We do things as two nations that no other militaries or intelligence services do." He said his job during the conflict was to ensure Britain is defending its people and its partners, adding that "we are.” While the Europeans have made plain that the conflict isn't theirs, they have plenty of reason beyond securing the strait to ensure that Iran doesn't escalate further, analysts say. Why Europe needs to remain engaged More than a decade of civil war in Syria led more than 5 million people to flee and a significant number to seek asylum in Europe, with social and political ripples for the continent. And with the Houthis, the Iran-aligned militant group in Yemen, launching its first missiles of the war at Israel over the weekend and threatening to bog down the Red Sea, a critically important trade route for Europe, there's no shortage of reasons for European officials to use what leverage they might have to encourage Trump to wind down the war. “I think this is a true opportunity for Europe to show the Gulf that it can be a partner,” said Yasmine Farouk, Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Project director at the International Crisis Group. "And I think they have already been showing that in the defense (weapons they've provided to Gulf nations), they need now to make it more into the diplomatic side in terms of offering offramps and working on a deal." Europe, in its effort to persuade Trump, could do well by keeping its focus on the economic consequences of the war, pressing diplomacy and a maritime stabilization mission tied to a ceasefire, and building “an off-ramp that flatters Trump’s vanity,” Jeremy Shapiro, U.S. programs director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in an analysis published Tuesday. “Trump will claim victory no matter how this war ends,” Shapiro wrote. “Europeans should want that to happen sooner rather than later.” ___ Associated Press writers Ben Finley, Darlene Superville and Konstantin Toropin in Washington and Brian Melley in London contributed to this report.

Actors involved

USIranIsraelProxy

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran