U.S. President Donald J. Trump has described Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar as a “very weak response,” a choice of words widely interpreted as an effort to dial down tensions following the United States’ strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
In a statement released shortly after the incident, Trump said Iran had launched 14 ballistic missiles. Thirteen were intercepted and one was allowed to continue because it posed no threat. “There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was ‘set free,’ because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction,” he wrote.
Trump added that no American personnel were harmed and that the strike caused minimal damage. “Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their ‘system,’ and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE,” he said. The president also thanked Iran for what he described as “early notice” that helped prevent any casualties.
The tone of the statement stands in contrast to the dramatic nature of the U.S. air campaign just days earlier, which saw B-2 bombers drop multiple GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. That operation had prompted widespread concern over potential escalation in the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict.
Trump’s remarks are now being seen by analysts as a deliberate attempt to offer Tehran a face-saving path out of further confrontation. By publicly minimising the impact of the missile strikes and highlighting Iran’s apparent efforts to avoid casualties, the administration appears to be signalling that it considers the matter closed, provided Iran does not escalate further.
“Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region,” Trump said, adding that he would “enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.”
This messaging suggests Washington is laying the groundwork for a potential off-ramp. By characterising Iran’s response as largely symbolic and the U.S. retaliation as complete, the White House appears to be attempting to contain the crisis without backing down.
Whether Tehran views this as a sufficient de-escalation opportunity remains to be seen. For now, both sides have taken steps that could justify standing down, but the strategic situation in the region remains volatile.
Praying for TACO. Looks like Qatar PAC3 patriots intercepted all ten missiles.
Iran blinked.
I’m not sure that was a helpful interview by Donald Trump..it sort of sounds baiting, especially when you consider the recipients are a bunch of nutters.
Are you talking about the Irainians or his voting base?
……both…🫣
What if it is a bait, a trap? If Iran terrorists strike very, very hard on Americans, then our Orange hero would take the attack as an act of war. And declare Emergency Measures to have absolute power, and suspend the Constitution, and rule forever. GOP courts and GOP judges will agree. Half of the Americans already condone everything he does now
Slightly of track but I have just been reading about the UK spending on defence of 5% by 2035. Here is an issue that the US or Trump does not understand if all of ENATO + Canada spends 5% GDP on defence would Europe need America? Is it possible that the US would have a semi friend in Europe.
I have spent several hours if not a few days looking at European defence. When you start to look at the combined numbers it is not to bad, well I would not want to take it on. With European nations almost increasing defence by 100% (2% up to 5% is a 150% increase). So for the UK that would be 17.5 SSNs, 4 carriers, 140,000 troops. If most of Europe was to do the same would we need the US? Could at that point tell the US thank you but get lost. Most of the bigger nations apart from Poland spend 2+% so a 3.5%for the armed forces and 1.5% for infrastructure etc is alomost double what we have now. So think about all of ENATO with double the size of what we have now then combine this into a single force. Does the US realy want a potential threat from the East and a real threat from the West?
Someone in the States should really read Mahan and the war plan of 1891 which by the way I am using as the base of my PHD for Naval diplomacy and American expansionism, 1756-1922. Just a quick side note, do people know that the war plan by Mahan (War against Great Britian 1891) was updated until 1974. This war plan was built on the failure of the US to take control of Canada, the last time the US tried was in 1812. Do you really think that the reason of the 1812 war was because the RN would stop and search American ships? No, it was a reason used for the real goal of America for the Americans. The moment the UK and RN did not have a issue with France 1815 and was able to send the fleet and 100,000 battle hardend troops to Canada the USS asked for peace.That due to American attitudes in 1918-1919 we came within 72 hours of the restart of hostilities with Germany because the US wanted the High Seas Fleet returned to Germany to act as a counter to the RN. When the UK was not moving of the subject and the US demanding the HSF scuttled. I will take my thinking further. Has anyone asked why did the US build the Panama Canal? Simple to reduce costs to the US so that their fleet could go from the Atlantic to the Pacific without having to go via the South Cape. Did anyone think about the overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii? How about to get in the middle between Aus and Canada. What about the Spanish American War. Ask yourself about the Washington Treaty 1922. Mahan said one thing of importace the defence of the US starts 3,000 miles from the shore!…
I could go on and on. The US is not a friend, it is a nation that will look after the US. Lets look at the 5%, who does Europe have as a threat, Russia, possibly. Is Russia a threat to Europ-e not really. Yes in nuclear capability, but tanks, Mmmm not realy, artillery, yes, fighter combat aircraft, No, Navy hell No. So, lets think of it a diffrent wat Europe is 3,000 miles from the US. Do you see something or must I point it out.
If you remember I said Mahan stated the defence of the US starts 3,000 mile from its shore. I am staring to wonder if Trump and his follwers are a reader of Mahan?
Sorry for my accademic thinking.