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.
Israel and Iran apparently have now greed to a ceasefire.
Perhaps the orange one was right 😀
Trump solves his own manufactured crisis. He does the same with tariffs.
😂
That’s why 70 million Americans voted for him 😂
Well you know what they say about leading a horse to water.
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
And you could go completely “Manchurian Candidate” and say it’s all a Russian plan via a group of controlled useful idiots .. the U.S. then removes itself entirely from Europe..while wearing down the EU.. allowing Russia to follow its near abroad policy and the final play a Sino US war that reduces both the U.S. and Chinese power….leaving Russia as the dominant world power..victory by political warfare… 😂😂🤪😜 Putins wet dreams.
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.
Well I’m more of a Corbett reader myself. You can define your view of International Relations as a future conflict between old and new world if you like but what’s the point? It’s a partial truth. American interests are American interests. Those interests are mostly in-line with European interests especially if you consider the Chinese or Russian alternates. Occasionally they’re not and unless there are significant consequences in clash of interests so what?
European interests are also often varied. French and German interests often clash so do the interests of Brussels and Warsaw.
To be honest Trump’s bullying of European countries to pay for their own defence is well deserved and in that question I’d much rather prefer to follow the leadership of a Trump over vapid fools like Cameron, Merkel or Macron.
Your analysis of the threat from Russia is also flawed. You have to model risk properly. Is Russia currently a military threat to all of Europe? – No.
Is Russia a threat to Finland and the Baltic States – Yes. Could Russia win a conventional war to seize those territories and then hide behind a nuclear shield – yes.
Could Russia still win a conventional war in Ukraine and become more powerful in the future from absorbing all the resources of Ukraine? – Yes
Could a future confident reconstituted New USSR threaten Europe? – Yes
If European states cant control their compulsions to virtue signal their “superior” cognition and morality regarding US foreign policy they should probably stop charging their national defence to the American Credit Card first.
Europe can afford to look after it’s own defence. It should do so. Liberal European states freeloading off American largesse whilst simultaneously criticising a populist American President is grossly hypocritical.
Amusing. The United States contributes just over 30% of the NATO budget. If anything we should be charging them. They are the only country to have activated Article 5. We supported them in Gulf war 1&2 plus Afghanistan. We allow them to use our bases for their own geo political purposes. The United States spends more on it’s indo pacific and far eastern interests than NATO. The United States profits hugely from it’s sale of arms to other NATO countries too. As for Russia, I highly doubt they would win a war, now or in the future against Finland on it’s own. Let alone against JEF, which they are a member of. As for a reconstituted USSR, that’s a nationalist’s wet dream.
Don’t conflate money with capability. Money is only potential not actuality. Also I would imagine the herbivore governments of Europe include all sorts of things in their defence budgets (pensions, Gendarmerie, Climate Change sh*t) which don’t even remotely contribute to defence. If Europe is so good at financing it’s defence it seems rather odd that we end up in the situation where the size of the British Army falls below 80000, the RAF to around 100 Fastjets, lacking both AEW and GBAD and there seems to be a distinct lack or warships in the Royal Navy. After all wasn’t David Cameron a good boy on meeting the minimum 2% target?
A Finland protected by an effective, motivated, well armed and well trained ENATO is safe.
A Finland protected by a vapid governments led by Russophile governments such as Merkel or Macron is not safe. Finland’s border is long it’s population is small. The Russians still have lots of men under arms.
Also when determining vulnerabilities you have to look past todays headlines and model what a post Ukraine malevolent Russia looks like.
What lessons have they learned from Ukraine which we have not?
A reconstituted USSR is Putin’s dream and principle motivation and unfortunately we’re all currently living in it.
Europe should stop whining about being abandoned by the Orange Man and look instead to its own defences. Assess what we need and put the resources into provisioning it. Europe is big enough and rich enough to deter and defend itself against Russia.
But that does means investing in or own defence capabilities and not relying on the US to do that for us and then whining about how horrible they are when they don’t.
I personally think everyone looks both the wrong way and try’s to have their cake, eat it and refuse to defend it.
The key question is not US interests or European interests or UK, Japanese etc etc its is there still actually a meaningful consensus around the singular interests of western liberal democracies over everything else.. or has that degraded to a point where there really is now just regional/national interests? Because if that is the case then the US and Euro are heading to a relationship of favourable neutrality.. and that will probably be more deadly for US interests than European interests.. because everyone is looking at the wrong way and should be focusing on China..
The reality is Russia cannot go to war with the bulk of Europe and survive.. Europe has 5-10 times its mass, wealth and industrial capacity. All it can do is play political warfare games at the periphery.. it will try and lever its ethic Russian populations in the Baltic states to create internal discord and try an tip a civil war or change in government to its favour..it cannot take Poland it cannot knock Poland, Sweden and Finland out of NATO so it cannot reconstituted the USSR and it faces a vastly larger European entity than the USSR ever faced….the only time it will do something like direct kinetic warfare with Europe is if Europe gets engaged and entangled with the real enemy of liberal democratic hegemony…..
China.. because china is going for the US unless the U.S. backs away from Tiawan ( which it will not do). So some time after 2027 china will attack Taiwan, unless Taiwan agrees to unification.
the only question china will be weighing up is can it still get reunification politically and who else does it need to attack using strategic surprise and will Europe weigh into any Sino US war.. you can essentially put chinas future decision using a pretty simple algorithm ( because it’s already made the decision to reunify at any cost.. because it’s presently paying a huge cost to prepare for that day… it’s burning a significant percentage of its national wealth and growth potential already). Will Taiwan reunify without force… 1) YES: follow the political route NO: attack Taiwan 2) will the U.S. defend Taiwan, YES: attack the U.S. NO: U.S. leave the US alone MAYBE: us a massive deterrent posture ( one of the reasons the US has kept strategic ambiguity about defending Taiwan is to mitigate risk of a massive Sunday punch event on its western pacific forces from strategic surprise, so it can have time to both concentrate forces and decide). 3) Will Japan defend Taiwan YES: attack Japan NO, leave Japan alone 4) will Europe nations enter a War on if China attacks the U.S. YES: make sure it is able to undertake strategic attacks on Europe and counter European engagement NO: Leave Europe alone.
One of the best ways china can counter European engagement in a Sino pacific war is if it can lever Russia as a barrier to US Europe relationships and have Russia as a threat that European nations need to keep an eye on.. infact the one time I could see Russian kinetically attacking Europe is if it gets distracted and involved in a pacific war and sends a lot of its strategic naval and air capabilities to the pacific region.
Apparently, Iran fired 14 missiles
We are seeing similar numbers now being fired at Israel (a big reduction from the previous volleys of ~200)
So is Iran running short of missiles or is this a change of tactic?
This I would suggest is a de escalation.. essentially using a level of force it knows will not penetrate defences.
Is that not just a waste of expensive missiles?
Probably worth it to them, Iranian public will see missiles launched and can see AI generated vids of said missiles destroying the evil enemy so the image is well worth the monetary cost