In a series of statements from the Oval Office, U.S. President Donald Trump raised the tone of his rhetoric regarding the war with Iran, speaking about preventing a “nuclear war” that would have led to the destruction of “many countries.” He also addressed Washington’s view of the future of the Iranian regime following the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Trump described the military intervention in Iran as a preemptive step that prevented the outbreak of a nuclear confrontation. He said Iran would have “attacked first.”
“If we had not done what we are doing now, there would have been a nuclear war and they would have destroyed many countries,” Trump said. He went on to describe Iran’s leadership as “sick people—mentally sick, angry, crazy.”
The U.S. president said that Iran “no longer has a navy or an air force,” adding that its missile launch platforms are “running out.” However, he acknowledged that Iran could still “continue launching missiles for some time.”
Edward Joseph, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, says overthrowing the Iranian regime “through air power alone is extremely difficult—perhaps impossible.”
Joseph told Alhurra that while the timing of Saturday’s attack surprised surviving regime leaders, “the war itself was not a surprise,” noting that the stakes have become existential for anyone who believes in the system or benefits from its structure.
Who Rules Iran After Khamenei?
On the political dimension, Trump noted that “many potential successors” within Iran’s leadership had been killed, suggesting that the “worst-case scenario” would be for someone “as bad as the previous ones” to take power.
He also hinted at the possibility of working with “someone in a new Iranian government,” saying that “it’s not too late.”
Although Trump has not explicitly declared that the United States is pursuing a policy of regime change, his references to “the day after” and to the number of leaders who have been killed suggest that weakening Iran’s leadership structure is part of the strategic calculus.
Joseph argues that the absence of a precisely defined objective—particularly regarding regime change—may itself be a political advantage for Trump, giving him flexibility in shaping the final outcome. That outcome, he says, could include the survival of a weakened and fragmented Islamic Republic rather than the complete collapse of the regime.
Israel and America: Who Is Leading Whom?
Responding to speculation that Israel pushed the United States into the war, Trump said, “Maybe I pushed Israel.”
Trump made the remarks during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who pointed to the war’s economic repercussions, including rising oil and gas prices and declining markets.
Despite the economic impact, Trump said that “something had to be done,” predicting that oil prices might rise briefly before falling again later.
Relations With Allies
Trump praised Germany’s role in the war against Iran, saying Berlin allows U.S. forces to land in “certain areas.”
Merz, the first European leader to visit Washington following the attacks on Iran, said Germany and the United States agree on the need to remove what he called the “abhorrent regime in Iran.”
In contrast, Trump sharply criticized other European allies, the United Kingdom and Spain.
He said the United States would sever all trade relations with Madrid after Spain refused to allow the U.S. military to use its bases for missions related to the strikes on Iran, calling Spain’s position “very bad.”
Trump also criticized Britain for its “lack of cooperation” with the United States, despite British Prime Minister Keir Starmer previously announcing that Washington would be allowed to use British military bases, though London declined to join the “offensive strikes” against Iran.
Earlier, Trump told The Daily Telegraph that Britain had taken too long to authorize the use of its air bases for operations against Iran. He added that he was disappointed with Starmer’s position regarding the use of the strategically important Diego Garcia air base.
Joseph notes that Trump’s previous threats regarding Greenland, along with his repeated criticism of European allies, have shaken European confidence in Washington. Aside from the issue of allowing access to military bases, he says, Trump does not appear to place much importance on Europe’s role.
However, Joseph warns that this approach could change. With energy prices rising and depending on the trajectory of the military campaign and Iran’s efforts to destabilize the region, Trump may find himself needing Europe as a full partner in any effort to reshape the course of the Middle East.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
Ghassan Taqi
A journalist specializing in Iraqi affairs, he has worked with the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) since 2015. He previously spent several years with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, as well as various Iraqi and Arab media outlets.
