War or wasted effort? Former President Donald Trump has admitted that even a full-scale conflict with Iran might ultimately lead to little real change—a sobering acknowledgment as tensions with Tehran continue to shape global headlines. But here’s where it gets controversial: while backing away from his earlier calls for regime change, Trump insisted that the U.S. strikes were not instigated by Israel, despite reports suggesting otherwise.
“I might have forced their hand,” Trump told reporters, contradicting Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claim that Israel’s determination to act first against Iran—coupled with fears of retaliatory attacks on U.S. forces—pushed the White House into action. Trump offered a different version of events, suggesting that Iran itself was preparing to attack: “Based on how the negotiations were going, I think they were about to strike first—and I wasn’t going to let that happen.”
On the economic front, Trump acknowledged that the war would cause oil prices to surge, noting that gas prices across the U.S. had jumped 11 cents overnight. Still, he downplayed the concern: “If prices stay high for a bit, fine—but once this ends, they’ll drop even lower than before.” His message was clear—military timing, in his view, was more important than market stability.
These remarks came as Trump met with German leader Friedrich Merz, who assured reporters that he and Trump were “aligned” on their approach to Iran—a position not shared by several other European leaders. Merz expressed concern that the soaring cost of oil and gas risked damaging Western economies and hoped for a swift resolution to the conflict. “That’s why,” Merz said, “we all want this war to end as soon as possible.”
Trump praised Merz for being “very kind” regarding U.S. actions in Iran, but he didn’t hold back criticism toward less supportive allies—especially Spain. After Spain’s president refused to allow American use of joint military bases, calling the war a breach of international law, fifteen U.S. aircraft withdrew from the country. In retaliation, Trump said he instructed his Treasury secretary to cut off trade with Spain, apparently overlooking the fact that trade is conducted with the entire European Union, not individual member states. He even hinted that the U.S. could have violated Spanish sovereignty if it chose to do so: “We could just fly in and use the bases. Nobody would stop us—but we don’t have to. They were uncooperative.”
The drama over Spain follows lingering tension from Trump’s earlier threats regarding Greenland, when he floated the idea of using military force to seize the territory from Denmark, a fellow NATO ally. Although he eventually backtracked, the incident left deep scars in Europe’s perception of America’s reliability, shaking faith that had endured since World War II.
Sitting beside Merz, Trump also took aim at British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose criticism of the Iran operation—and refusal to grant American access to the joint Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands—further angered him. “Spain’s been uncooperative—and so has the UK,” Trump complained. “The second one’s surprising, but this isn’t Churchill’s Britain anymore. The UK’s been very unhelpful with that stupid island they gave away.”
But here’s what sparks debate: Is Trump’s blunt pragmatism a form of strategic realism—or reckless diplomacy that weakens alliances? Should the U.S. act unilaterally when allies resist, or is that a dangerous step too far? What do you think—was Trump right to prioritize action over consensus, or did he alienate crucial partners in the process? Share your take in the comments below.
