BERLIN — German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Tuesday condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for going to war with Iran, calling the conflict a violation of international law and warning of a transatlantic rupture comparable to Germany’s break with Russia. Steinmeier’s role in German politics is largely ceremonial, but his sharp criticism of the war and the U.S. president is likely to put additional pressure on German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has stopped short of other European leaders in calling the war illegal even as he has grown increasingly critical of what he sees as the lack of an exit strategy on the part of the U.S. and Israel. “This war violates international law,” said Steinmeier, who is a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which rules in a coalition with Merz’s conservatives and has been more critical of the ongoing attacks. “There is little doubt that, in any case, the justification of an imminent attack on the U.S. does not hold water,” he added. Steinmeier, speaking in front of an audience of German diplomats in Berlin, criticized Trump for withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term in office. The president, who served as Germany’s foreign minister from 2013 to 2017, had helped negotiate that deal. “This war is also — and please bear with me when I say this, as someone directly involved — a politically disastrous mistake,” said Steinmeier. “And that’s what frustrates me the most. A truly avoidable, unnecessary war, if its goal was to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” Despite the president’s largely symbolic role, his strident criticism is likely to fuel a growing domestic debate over Germany’s stance on the Iran war and its relationship with the U.S. Merz and his fellow conservatives were initially far more supportive of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran than many other EU countries, arguing that Germany shares the goal of regime change in Tehran. But as the conflict has expanded and the economic and security effects on the EU’s biggest economy have become clearer, the chancellor has become far more openly critical, saying the war has raised “major questions” about Europe’s security. Steinmeier, who refrained from criticizing Israel directly, also compared the transatlantic rift during Trump’s second term to Germany’s divorce from Russia in the wake of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. “Just as I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before February 24, 2022 in our relationship with Russia, so I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before January 20, 2025 in transatlantic relations,” Steinmeier said, referring to the day of Trump’s second inauguration. “The rupture is too deep.” Steinmeier then urged his country to become more independent of the U.S., both in terms of defense and technology, arguing that such autonomy is necessary to prevent Trump administration interference in his country’s domestic politics. The German military “must become the backbone of conventional defense in Europe,” he said. “In the technological sphere, our dependence on the U.S. is even greater. This makes it all the more important that we do not simply accept this situation.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Zehn Tage vor der Landtagswahl in Rheinland-Pfalz läuft alles auf ein Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen hinaus. Gestern Abend trafen SPD-Amtsinhaber Alexander Schweizer und CDU-Herausforderer Gordon Schnieder im TV-Duell aufeinander. Während Schweizer auf den Amtsbonus setzt, kämpft Schnieder gegen das „Baden-Württemberg-Trauma“ der Union und versucht, sich von der schwächelnden Berliner Bundespolitik abzugrenzen. Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert, wer im Studio die Oberhand behalten hat und welche Auswirkungen die Wahl am Ende auch für die Bundespolitik hat. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview mit Rixa Fürsen spricht die grüne Spitzenkandidatin Katrin Eder über das wahrscheinliche Regierung-Aus ihrer Partei. Anders als Cem Özdemir zuvor in Baden-Württemberg stagnieren die rheinland-pfälzischen Grünen in den Umfragen. Eder erklärt, warum sie trotz des Gegenwinds an einem klassischen grünen Profil festhält und wie sie den drohenden Machtverlust in einer möglichen schwarz-roten Zukunft verhindern will. Außenminister Johann Wadephul ist in Israel. Im Gepäck hat er eine ungewohnt deutliche Warnung von Kanzler Friedrich Merz: Deutschland sieht durch die aktuelle israelische Siedlungspolitik die Zwei-Staaten-Lösung in noch größerer Gefahr und damit womöglich bald eine rote Linie überschritten. Gemeinsam mit Hans von der Burchard ordnet Rixa ein, warum Berlin jetzt den Ton gegenüber dem Partner verschärft, welche Gefahr eine totale Destabilisierung des Irans für Europa bedeutet und was Wadephul für deutsche Bürger in der Region erreichen kann. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von Amazon: Unabhängige Verkaufspartner stehen heute für über 60 % aller bei Amazon verkauften Produkte. Ein Beispiel ist Alphatrail aus Regensburg: Michael und sein Team haben ihre Leidenschaft in ein erfolgreich wachsendes Unternehmen verwandelt. Über Amazon bietet Alphatrail Radsport-Fans in ganz Europa erstklassige Ausrüstung und Zubehör. Sie sind eines von rund 47.000 deutschen kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen bei Amazon. Erfahren Sie mehr darüber auf AboutAmazon.de.**

Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. Last December, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out the current administration’s National Defense Strategy, arguing that President Donald Trump was the true heir to former President Ronald Reagan’s strategy of peace through strength. A key part of that strategy, Hegseth maintained, was the Weinberger Doctrine, which determined the principles for when and how the U.S. was to use military force. He then claimed that last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran had been “a textbook example” of that doctrine, its strikes “obliterating the Iranian nuclear program.” But what about the current war against Iran? Does Operation Epic Fury also hold up against Weinberger’s tenets? Hegseth would surely have a tough time making that case — and for Trump, this could finally mean trouble. In a November 1984 speech, then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger outlined six principles for military engagement that were, in many ways, drawn from lessons learned during that year’s disastrous Lebanon expedition and the failures in Vietnam a decade before. Unsurprisingly, Trump’s Iran war fails to meet virtually every single one. First, Weinberger said, force should only be used if a vital national interest is at stake. And while Iran may be governed by an odious regime that has accumulated a vast arsenal of ballistic missiles, pursued a nuclear program and exported terrorism overseas, the U.S. has lived with this very regime for almost half a century. Moreover, Tehran is weaker today than it has been in decades. Its economy is in shambles, its proxies have been decimated by Israel, and its allies in Syria have been ousted. The list doesn’t end there: Its nuclear program was buried deep underground after last year’s Israeli-U.S. bombing campaign; its missile stockpiles are dwindling; its production facilities are damaged; its air force can’t fly; its army can’t move beyond its borders; and its navy is little more than a coastal fleet. So while the end of the Iranian regime would be a good thing, it’s hard to make the case that, weakened as it was by war, sanctions and mismanagement, Tehran posed enough of a threat to vital U.S. national interests to justify a preventive war. Next come Weinberger’s second, third and fourth principles — that before deciding to use force, the U.S. needs to have clearly defined objectives, be wholeheartedly committed to achieving them, and deploy sufficient force to make sure it does. In the case of Iran, there are problems with all three. For one, Trump and his aides have cited many different objectives: deposing the regime, ensuring Iran never has nuclear weapons, destroying the country’s missile capabilities, vanquishing its navy, ending support for its proxies and terrorism, exacting revenge for past attacks killing Americans, as well as ensuring Iran can never project force beyond its borders. All these constitute a tall order, to say the least. Regime change, for one, is hard to achieve from the air, and yet it seems Washington has no intention of deploying ground troops to depose Iran’s regime, maintain order and assist a new one in taking over. And though airpower can do a lot to degrade and destroy the country’s nuclear program, missile capability and military in the short run, those are a means to an end. What political objective would be served by effectively disarming Iran? What would constitute success for the U.S.? And how much force would be needed to achieve it? On this, the administration and the president have been silent. A key part of that strategy, Pete Hegseth maintained, was the Weinberger Doctrine, which determined the principles for when and how the U.S. was to use military force. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Finally, we have Weinberger’s last two principles, which are the most exacting but also the most important in a democracy: First among them is having a “reasonable assurance” of public and congressional support for the contemplated action. Here, the administration hasn’t even tried. In his State of the Union address just days before ordering the start of the war, Trump devoted only three of his 108 minutes to Iran. He emphasized that Iran needed to say the “secret words” that it would not get nuclear weapons — words it has uttered for decades — and never made the case to the public for war to achieve this or any other objective. Also, in contrast to his two Republican predecessors who similarly embarked on wars in the Middle East in the past 30 years — George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush — Trump didn’t seek congressional support either. Rather, he has ignored Congress completely, despite its constitutional role to declare war. Then comes the sixth and most obvious Weinberger principle: War should be a last resort. And what’s unfolding now is anything but. Twice the U.S. engaged in direct and indirect talks with Iran over its nuclear program, and twice Trump decided to go to war rather than see whether a deal was possible. Moreover, the U.S. negotiating team consisted of two entrepreneurs close to the president — his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff — both of whom know little about the intricacies of nuclear weapons and programs. For example, just days before the talks, Witkoff told Fox News that Iran was “a week away” from making “industrial-grade bomb-making material” — except, in reality, Iran was in no position to enrich any of its uranium since the material was buried deep underground, and there’s no evidence that it even had operable enrichment centrifuges. Witkoff also claimed that Iran had suggested it had sufficient nuclear material to make 11 bombs, and that this fact had been hidden from inspectors. But the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is responsible for verifying nuclear activities, was well aware of exactly how much uranium Iran had enriched after Trump ripped up the last nuclear deal in 2018. The truth is, Iran was nowhere near getting a nuclear weapon. It wouldn’t have the capacity to build a long-range missile that could hit the U.S. for many years. It had no intention of striking U.S. forces in the Middle East first. And there were other ways to address these long-term threats. Moreover, the U.S. negotiating team consisted of two entrepreneurs close to the president — his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff — both of whom know little about the intricacies of nuclear weapons and programs. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Trump’s decision to go to war wasn’t a last resort — it was a dangerous gamble that force could achieve what diplomacy could not, and it was wholly inconsistent with the Weinberger Doctrine that Hegseth touted as the administration’s guide. Of course, like all gambles, this all might just pay off. But it’s far more likely to end badly, with a new Iranian regime that’s even more determined to exact revenge, using terror and other means to strike back. If so, the cost for Trump will be significant. Just as Bush paid a heavy toll for his Iraq misadventure, and Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden paid dearly for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, there will be a steep political price for this unnecessary and dangerous wager come November.

BRUSSELS — Most European leaders have reacted cautiously to the U.S.-Israeli attacks over the weekend that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while condemning Tehran’s retaliatory strikes. Some have openly touted the possibility of a new regime in Iran. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchéz was the only EU leader to openly condemn the strikes on Iran. Among EU officials, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said “a credible transition in Iran is urgently needed,” while the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas said “there is now an open path to a different Iran.” European foreign ministers are meeting Sunday night for an emergency session on the Middle East after almost 36 hours of strikes and counterstrikes across the region. Here is a roundup of reactions in EU capitals. Austria Chancellor Christian Stocker condemned the Iranian attacks on Persian Gulf states and Israel, and said the Iranian people “deserve a life in peace, security and prosperity.” Austrian Foreign Minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger said Khameini’s death “opens a window” for a new era in Iran. Belgium Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot condemned the attacks by Iran “in the strongest possible terms” and urged Belgian citizens in the Middle East to seek safety. Bulgaria The foreign ministry condemned Iran’s strikes on Gulf states, saying they expand “the scope of the dangerous military escalation for which it is responsible.” The ministry said Iran should stop its attacks. Croatia Foreign Minister Gordan Grlić Radman emphasized de-escalation and a return to diplomacy after Khameini’s death. The foreign ministry lambasted Tehran’s “intransigence and lack of credibility,” which it said had led to the attack by the U.S. and Israel. It also condemned Iran’s retaliatory strikes. Cyprus President Nikos Christodoulides condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks against Gulf countries and stressed the need for de-escalation and diplomacy. Czechia Prime Minister Andrej Babiš said the “uncontrollable Iranian nuclear program and support for terrorism are a danger to us and to all of Europe,” adding that Prague stands by its allies in the region. He later condemned Tehran’s attacks on Gulf countries. Denmark Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said “Iran’s past actions are completely unacceptable.” Danish officials are “closely following” developments in the Middle East, he added. Estonia Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said “the death of Ayatollah Khamenei represents a significant setback for Iran’s ally, Russia, and creates an opening for the Iranian people to shape their own future. Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. Pressure through sanctions must be maintained until Iran ends its aggression abroad and repression against its own people at home.” Finland “Finland condemns Iran’s unjustifiable and indiscriminate strikes on the countries in the region,” President Alexander Stubb said. “Even those who were working toward a diplomatic solution are now being targeted.” He added the attacks must stop to protect civilians. France President Emmanuel Macron condemned the “disproportionate” Iranian response to the U.S.-Israeli attack and said Paris is “ready to deploy resources to protect its closest partners” in the Middle East, while warning that the conflict “carries grave consequences” for international peace. “The Iranian people must also be able to freely build their future,” he said. France, along with E3 partners Germany and the U.K., said they had no involvement in the attacks on Iran. Germany Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran risk another Iraq-style quagmire, but said Berlin won’t lecture Washington as it seeks U.S. help to end the war in Ukraine. The German leader is set to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday. Merz also stressed that despite U.S. efforts, Iran hasn’t agreed to a nuclear deal or committed to reducing its missile program. Greece Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis stressed the safety of Greeks in the region and the need for effective control of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, according to local media. Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said Hungary is raising its counterterrorism level and used the strikes on Iran as a chance to talk about the Druzbha pipeline, a Russian oil conduit to Central Europe that he claims Ukraine is maliciously keeping shut. Ireland Ireland Taoiseach Micheál Martin expressed grave concern about escalation in the Middle East. Tehran “must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons,” he said in a statement, but “that goal should be pursued around the negotiating table.” Italy Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her government have been reluctant to condemn or applaud the attack on Iran or Tehran’s counterattacks, but instead has focused on operational measures like organizing a Gulf Task Force and speaking to Oman and Qatar. Latvia “The world will shed no tears for the demise of the murderous Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It is a moment of relief for the brave Iranian people,” Foreign Minister Baiba Braže said. “The Iranian people deserve a future free from violence and oppression.” Lithuania Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budris welcomed the death of Khameini. “The hope for better future, for Iranian people — but also for Israelis and all of the Middle East — seems to have come closer,” he said. Luxembourg Prime Minister Luc Frieden said he supports the Iranian people, stressing they must now be allowed to “decide their future, free from violence and oppression.” Malta Deputy Prime Minister Ian Borg condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks and affirmed Valletta’s solidarity with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Netherlands Prime Minister Rob Jetten said Iran’s attacks must stop and that the Dutch government is concerned about conflict in the region. He noted major concerns about Iran’s regime and its repression. Poland President Karol Nawrocki said Poland had advance knowledge of the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran, while Prime Minister Donald Tusk stressed the safety of Polish citizens in the Middle East. Portugal Prime Minister Luís Motenegro condemned the Iranian attacks on Gulf states and urged restraint. “We also reiterate, as we always have, the need for Iran to respect the human rights of its people, which have been violated in an unacceptable manner,” he said. Romania President Nicușor Dan focused on the safety of Romanian citizens, but Foreign Minister Toiu Oana said Khameini’s death “is a turning point,” stressing the Iranian regime’s brutal actions against its citizens and support for Russia’s military campaign. Slovakia President Robert Fico said retaliation had been expected after the attack on Iran and expressed solidarity with the countries affected, especially the United Arab Emirates. Slovenia The government in Ljubljana said it is “following with concern” the developments in the Middle East and called for de-escalation. “Further escalation could have serious consequences for regional and international security,” it said. Spain Prime Minister Pedro Sanchéz was the only EU leader to openly condemn the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. “We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel,” he said. He also condemned Tehran’s counterattacks: “We cannot afford another prolonged and devastating war in the Middle East.” Sweden Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson condemned the Iranian counterattacks and criticized the regime’s oppression of its own people. “Iran’s nuclear program and its support for terrorist groups have for a long time been a destabilizing factor,” he said.

In the end, President Donald Trump lost his patience. For weeks, his administration had pursued a dual-track strategy toward Iran, dispatching envoys Steve Wifkoff and Jared Kushner to negotiate with Iran on its nuclear program while staging the largest military build up in the Middle East since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. But once the USS Gerald R. Ford steamed into the Mediterranean eight days ago, current and former officials say, the balance shifted. By the end of the week, Trump made the final call to pursue military action after deciding that Iran’s Islamist regime would not commit to his satisfaction to forgo nuclear weapons, according to three senior Trump administration officials. On Saturday in Iran, U.S. forces launched coordinated strikes alongside Israel, ending a tense standoff that had built for months and bringing Washington into its most expansive military confrontation with Tehran to date. WAITING FOR THE ARMADA The USS Ford entered the Mediterranean around Feb. 20, a major factor in the ultimate timing of the strike, according to one former National Security Council official and one Israeli official. The carrier’s arrival gave Trump the full range of military options Trump wanted. The officials, like others in this report, were granted anonymity to share sensitive details of the operation. “The arrival of the Ford was significant,” said the former Trump NSC official who’s been involved with Iran policy. It was also the result of weeks of close U.S.-Israeli intelligence collection and coordination. “Whenever you eliminate people, and not just carry out an attack against targets, there’s an element of surprise and also when you have the intelligence on them,” the Israeli official said. Trump had made clear to advisers that while he wanted to give diplomacy one last chance, he would not allow talks to drag on indefinitely, according to a high-level administration official involved in Middle East diplomacy. Since January, when Iranian security forces killed what some reports have called tens of thousands of protesters in a brutal crackdown, Trump had grown increasingly convinced that Tehran needed new leadership, calling for an end to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s 37-year-reign in an interview with POLITICO.Still, he authorized a final diplomatic push. He sent longtime confidant Steve Witkoff, along with his son-in-law and peace envoy Jared Kushner to Geneva to explore the possibility of a nuclear deal with the Iranians. Kushner and Witkoff met Iranian officials in Geneva twice in February, with Oman serving as a mediator. The high-level administration official involved in Middle East diplomacy described the effort as genuine, if ultimately futile. “The read is simple: He very much optimized for a deal,” the official said. “There was no true counterparty in the end. This is the way we have executed this from the start. In [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, for example, there is a willing counterparty, albeit tough, but at the table.” “Here, when it’s literal religion, it becomes a fool’s errand at a point to keep trying to find a compromise,” the official added. THE AMERICAN RED LINE The Iranians made some concessions, such as offering to stop enrichment for a time, but they fell far short of what was needed to satisfy the hard American line: a commitment to not develop a nuclear weapon. One of the senior Trump administration officials said Iran insisted on keeping their enrichment capabilities even after Washington offered what they felt were creative workarounds, such as free nuclear fuel forever. “One of the rules of dealmaking is that you have to know very quickly if there’s a deal to do or not,” the official said. “If they wanted to have a civil peaceful nuclear program, we offered them many, many ways to do that. But instead that was met with games, tricks, stall tactics, and that was really the conclusion that we came back with.” In the talks Iran wanted to talk specifics about sanctions relief and nuclear compromises, but Washington sent only Kushner and Witkoff – not any experts, confusing the Iranian delegation about how to move forward, according to one person familiar with the diplomacy. The Americans did not see the need for any experts to discuss zero uranium enrichment, a second person said. The last-ditch effort at diplomacy was also a way to mollify Arab allies, who in recent weeks had urged caution about attacking Iran in conversations with the president’s top aides. But several Arab diplomats came away from their White House meetings with a sense that their concerns weren’t breaking through and that an attack at some point soon seemed likely, according to three people familiar with those conversations. “Trump has been pressing hard for weeks,” one of those people said. “Once the military was in place, the window of opportunity was there.” For weeks, two of the people familiar added, U.S. officials were quietly laying the groundwork inside Iran for strikes targeting the country’s military and religious leaders. That effort involved gleaning intelligence about the location of Iran’s leaders for a strike and figuring out who would be willing to work with the U.S. if the regime were to fall. On Tuesday, congressional leaders in the Gang of Eight were briefed on the possibility of U.S. military action in coordination with Israel. Two days later, Trump received a briefing from U.S. Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper on his options. In planning meetings in the lead-up to U.S. military strikes, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine expressed concern about the impacts of an extended U.S. military operation on the Pentagon’s stockpiles and air defenses, according to one of the people familiar with the conversations. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was not part of the day-to-day planning, also had reservations. But neither of them forcefully made the case against going to war, the person said. Beyond Trump and a small handful of hawks, the mood in the administration became one of resignation. In the administration, “these guys are just apoplectic about where things are heading,” the person said. “There were people uncomfortable with Midnight Hammer and Absolute Resolve,” the person said, referring to the June attack on the Iranian nuclear sites and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. “But those were well planned and had discrete objectives. This doesn’t have that.” On Friday, Vice President JD Vance met with Oman’s foreign minister Badr Albusaidi, who was mediating the U.S.-Iran talks, in a Hail-Mary diplomatic play. Though Albusaidi left the most recent round of talks in Geneva saying there had been “significant progress,” the American delegation was not satisfied after the most recent round. To Washington’s allies it was clear time was running out. At the center of the impasse was Trump’s insistence that Iran publicly and unequivocally commit to forgoing nuclear weapons. Iran’s repeated pledges over the years that it would not build such weapons apparently did not meet his bar. Iran denies it has ever sought to build a nuclear weapon, but the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported years of nuclear weapons-related work. Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium, the fissile material it could potentially use for a bomb, is believed to have been buried under rubble after the U.S. and Israel attacked its three main nuclear sites in June. Tehran says it has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes such as medical research. “They have to say, ‘We’re not gonna have a nuclear weapon,’” Trump said Friday, hours before the strikes began. “They just can’t quite get there.” “WE’VE BEEN PLAYING WITH THEM FOR 47 YEARS” By Friday afternoon, Trump was in Corpus Christi, Texas, for a rally, stopping at a burger joint after addressing supporters. Trump’s tone, even then, was resolute. “We’ve been playing with them for 47 years, and that’s a long time,” Trump said. “They’ve been blowing the legs off our people, blowing their face off our people, the arms. They’ve been knocking out ships one by one. And every month, there’s something else, so … you can’t put up with it too long.”That evening, Trump flew to Mar-a-Lago, where he set up operations at his private club as top defense and intelligence officials joined him. Hours later, the strikes began, as Trump watched from Mar-a-Lago and Vance and other Cabinet secretaries monitored from the Situation Room at the White House.“Now you have a president who is giving you what you want,” Trump said in recorded remarks, appealing directly to Iranian citizens. “So let’s see how you respond.” Nahal Toosi and Paul McLeary contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump said Friday he was not happy with the progress of talks with Iran over a potential nuclear deal. “I’m not happy with the fact that they’re not willing to give us what we have to have. I’m not thrilled with that. We’ll see what happens. We’ll have some additional talks today. But no, I’m not happy with the way they’re going,” the president told reporters before boarding Marine One, reiterating his warning that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. “We’ll see how it goes.” “We haven’t made a final decision,” he added. “We’re not thrilled with the way they’re negotiating.” Trump’s comments outside the White House come as the State Department Friday morning authorized non-emergency personnel to leave the U.S. embassy in Israel, citing “safety risks.” It also comes a day after U.S. representatives met with Iranian officials in Geneva for another round of negotiations as Trump continues to pressure Tehran to stand down its nuclear build up. Asked if he’s concerned that striking Iran could lead to a drawn out conflict, Trump acknowledged the risk “There’s always a risk. When there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad. We’ve had tremendous luck with myself — Soleimani, al-Baghdadi,” he said, citing his first administration’s killings of Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds force, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS leader. “Everything’s worked out.” The administration has a wide range of options, including limited strikes against Iranian nuclear and strategic targets to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program and ballistic missile development. The administration has ordered a significant deployment of U.S. naval and air forces — including multiple carrier strike groups and fighter jets — to the Middle East in recent weeks.

Mark T. Kimmitt is a retired U.S. Army brigadier general and has also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy. Despite the stern face portrayed on Iran’s government television, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is facing the most significant challenge to his legitimacy since assuming power in 1989. Indeed, the view from the supreme leader’s office Beit-e Rahbari must be quite parlous, with security forces gunning down peaceful protestors who took to the streets amid a collapsing economy, inflation out of control and a water catastrophe unseen in modern times. On top of that looms the threat of U.S. President Donald Trump, and the knowledge that Israel would be happy to assist in any move Washington might make. Even Khamenei’s recent outreach toward the U.S. — a tried-and-true method to buy time and diminish expectations — doesn’t seem to be working this time. But the ayatollah isn’t delusional, and must surely recognize he needs a lifeline. I believe he would do well to take one, and that Trump would do well to make such an offer. The recent U.S. operation in Venezuela is perhaps instructive here. The U.S. isn’t seeking a change in the Venezuelan regime, merely a change in its behavior, and is prepared to maintain the status quo. However, unlike the vague threat of drugs, sanctions-busting oil sales or longstanding Chavismo in America’s backyard, the threats from Iran are specific, existential and have been consistent over the years. A deal on those threats — Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, its missile program and its vast destabilizing proxy network — will be the terms of any perpetuation of the regime. And it must also include forgiveness for the protestors, protection of the right to peaceful future demonstrations, and the transparent prosecution of those responsible for killing unarmed civilians. For the U.S., airstrikes against key regime targets should be considered, as without a kinetic demonstration of resolve, the regime may believe it can withstand Washington’s rhetorical pressure. Strikes would also be an opportunity to bring the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its paramilitary Basij elements responsible for the killing of thousands of protestors to justice, and to again hit missile and nuclear targets still recovering from the blows they took back in June. But airstrikes also come with two major risks. The first is casualties and prisoners: Iran’s regime has a long history of hostage-taking, from the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979 to the U.S. hostages incarcerated today. The risk of American troops rotting in Evin Prison is one Washington will want to avoid. Second, airstrikes risk retaliation on U.S. bases within range of Iran’s vast rocket, missile and terrorist networks. The June 2025 attack on Al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar is a clear sign that Iran is able and willing to fire on the U.S., and in the current scenario a larger response and casualties should be expected. Now let’s look at the terms of a possible deal. Before anything else, Iran’s nuclear weapons development program must cease. Despite all the talks, deals and commitments over the years, Iran has been able to evade a system of inspection, verification and penalties to ensure it lives up to its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This must be the unequivocal baseline of any lifeline to the regime and a precondition for any further discussions. Next, the Iranian missile development program must also cease. For years, Iran has continued to produce long-range rockets and missiles at scale and proliferate them across the region. This allowed the Houthis to block the Red Sea and Hezbollah and Hamas to threaten and attack Israel, and it equipped the sanctioned Hashd factions in Iraq to attack U.S. units and threaten the elected government. So, again, any possible deal must call for inspection, verification and punitive actions in instances of violation. Lastly, the cancerous regional proxy network that Iran has armed, trained and equipped for a decade must be cut off from the country’s financial and military support. It must also be delinked from extrajudicial governance in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. These proxies — Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis — have been defeated and deterred from continued activity since Oct. 7, 2024, but only for the moment. Without any formal termination of support, they will undoubtedly return. Once again, the message to Iran must be to break with the proxies or face punitive action. Without concrete movement on these three elements, Khamenei and his regime face a bleak future. Donald Trump has told Iranian protestors that “help is on the way.” | Dingena Mol/EPA But even if this set of conditions is offered, expect the regime to react in its normal manner: delay, deflect, deny — diplomatic tools that have been successfully used by brilliant Iranian negotiators over the years. This stratagem must be quickly brushed aside by America’s interlocutors, who won’t be there to please or appease but to impose. In short, such an offer from the U.S. would mean a perpetuation of the regime, relief from sanctions, help with runaway inflation, and assistance in facing a climate catastrophe. But it would also come at a cost and with a choice — for Khamenei, either a lifeline or a noose. In all of this, the Iranian leader would do well to consider Trump’s first term, when the U.S. took the feared Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani off the battlefield with a drone in 2020, as well as his ongoing second term, particularly the 12-day war of 2025 and the recent apprehension of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro by U.S. special forces. There’s plenty of room in Maduro’s wing at the Brooklyn Detention Center for IRGC Deputy Commander-in-Chief Ahmad Vahidi and his accomplice Esmail Qaani, or side by side with Soleimani. Moreover, Iran has yet to rebuild its air-defense network after its disembowelment last year, and it still has hundreds of military and infrastructure targets that U.S., Israeli and other coalition pilots are ready to attack. Khamenei would also do well to remember that even if the protest is put down by killings, its underlying causes — inflation, sclerotic social norms and crippling water rationing — will remain. Trump has told Iranian protestors that “help is on the way” — and that could be interpreted as an offer to the regime as well. But Khamenei must accept he faces a U.S. president who is willing to ignore decades of diplomatic niceties and one-sided concessions in favor of finishing the job of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. One can only hope wisdom carries the day at Beit-e Rahbari, and that finally this time is different.

LONDON — Reza Pahlavi was in the United States as a student in 1979 when his father, the last shah of Iran, was toppled in a revolution. He has not set foot inside Iran since, though his monarchist supporters have never stopped believing that one day their “crown prince” will return.  As anti-regime demonstrations fill the streets of more than 100 towns and cities across the country of 90 million people, despite an internet blackout and an increasingly brutal crackdown, that day may just be nearing.   Pahlavi’s name is on the lips of many protesters, who chant that they want the “shah” back. Even his critics — and there are plenty who oppose a return of the monarchy — now concede that Pahlavi may prove to be the only figure with the profile required to oversee a transition.  The global implications of the end of the Islamic Republic and its replacement with a pro-Western democratic government would be profound, touching everything from the Gaza crisis to the wars in Ukraine and Yemen, to the oil market.  Over the course of three interviews in the past 12 months in London, Paris and online, Pahlavi told POLITICO how Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be overthrown. He set out the steps needed to end half a century of religious dictatorship and outlined his own proposal to lead a transition to secular democracy. Nothing is guaranteed, and even Pahlavi’s team cannot be sure that this current wave of protests will take down the regime, never mind bring him to power. But if it does, the following is an account of Pahlavi’s roadmap for revolution and his blueprint for a democratic future.  POPULAR UPRISING  Pahlavi argues that change needs to be driven from inside Iran, and in his interview with POLITICO last February he made it clear he wanted foreign powers to focus on supporting Iranians to move against their rulers rather than intervening militarily from the outside.  “People are already on the streets with no help. The economic situation is to a point where our currency devaluation, salaries can’t be paid, people can’t even afford a kilo of potatoes, never mind meat,” he said. “We need more and more sustained protests.” Over the past two weeks, the spiraling cost of living and economic mismanagement have indeed helped fuel the protest wave. The biggest rallies in years have filled the streets, despite attempts by the authorities to intimidate opponents through violence and by cutting off communications. Pahlavi has sought to encourage foreign financial support for workers who will disrupt the state by going on strike. He also called for more Starlink internet terminals to be shipped into Iran, in defiance of a ban, to make it harder for the regime to stop dissidents from communicating and coordinating their opposition. Amid the latest internet shutdowns, Starlink has provided the opposition movements with a vital lifeline. As the protests gathered pace last week, Pahlavi stepped up his own stream of social media posts and videos, which gain many millions of views, encouraging people onto the streets. He started by calling for demonstrations to begin at 8 p.m. local time, then urged protesters to start earlier and occupy city centers for longer. His supporters say these appeals are helping steer the protest movement. Reza Pahlavi argues that change needs to be driven from inside Iran. | Salvatore Di Nolfi/EPA The security forces have brutally crushed many of these gatherings. The Norway-based Iranian Human Rights group puts the number of dead at 648, while estimating that more than 10,000 people have been arrested. It’s almost impossible to know how widely Pahlavi’s message is permeating nationwide, but footage inside Iran suggests the exiled prince’s words are gaining some traction with demonstrators, with increasing images of the pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun flag appearing at protests, and crowds chanting “javid shah” — the eternal shah. DEFECTORS Understandably, given his family history, Pahlavi has made a study of revolutions and draws on the collapse of the Soviet Union to understand how the Islamic Republic can be overthrown. In Romania and Czechoslovakia, he said, what was required to end Communism was ultimately “maximum defections” among people inside the ruling elites, military and security services who did not want to “go down with the sinking ship.”  “I don’t think there will ever be a successful civil disobedience movement without the tacit collaboration or non-intervention of the military,” he said during an interview last February.  There are multiple layers to Iran’s machinery of repression, including the hated Basij militia, but the most powerful and feared part of its security apparatus is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Pahlavi argued that top IRGC commanders who are “lining their pockets” — and would remain loyal to Khamenei — did not represent the bulk of the organization’s operatives, many of whom “can’t pay rent and have to take a second job at the end of their shift.”  “They’re ultimately at some point contemplating their children are in the streets protesting … and resisting the regime. And it’s their children they’re called on to shoot. How long is that tenable?” Pahlavi’s offer to those defecting is that they will be granted an amnesty once the regime has fallen. He argues that most of the people currently working in the government and military will need to remain in their roles to provide stability once Khamenei has been thrown out, in order to avoid hollowing out the administration and creating a vacuum — as happened after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.  Only the hardline officials at the top of the regime in Tehran should expect to face punishment.  In June, Pahlavi announced he and his team were setting up a secure portal for defectors to register their support for overthrowing the regime, offering an amnesty to those who sign up and help support a popular uprising. By July, he told POLITICO, 50,000 apparent regime defectors had used the system.  His team are now wary of making claims regarding the total number of defectors, beyond saying “tens of thousands” have registered. These have to be verified, and any regime trolls or spies rooted out. But Pahlavi’s allies say a large number of new defectors made contact via the portal as the protests gathered pace in recent days.  REGIME CHANGE In his conversations with POLITICO last year, Pahlavi insisted he didn’t want the United States or Israel to get involved directly and drive out the supreme leader and his lieutenants. He always said the regime would be destroyed by a combination of fracturing from within and pressure from popular unrest.  He’s also been critical of the reluctance of European governments to challenge the regime and of their preference to continue diplomatic efforts, which he has described as appeasement. European powers, especially France, Germany and the U.K., have historically had a significant role in managing the West’s relations with Iran, notably in designing the 2015 nuclear deal that sought to limit Tehran’s uranium enrichment program.  But Pahlavi’s allies want more support and vocal condemnation from Europe. U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal in his first term and wasted little time on diplomacy in his second. He ordered American military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last year, as part of Israel’s 12-day war, action that many analysts and Pahlavi’s team agree leaves the clerical elite and its vast security apparatus weaker than ever.  U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal in his first term and wasted little time on diplomacy in his second. | Pool photo by Bonnie Cash via EPA Pahlavi remains in close contact with members of the Trump administration, as well as other governments including in Germany, France and the U.K. He has met U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio several times and said he regards him as “the most astute and understanding” holder of that office when it comes to Iran since the 1979 revolution.  In recent days Trump has escalated his threats to intervene, including potentially through more military action if Iran’s rulers continue their crackdown and kill large numbers of protesters.  On the weekend Pahlavi urged Trump to follow through. “Mr President,” he posted on X Sunday. “Your words of solidarity have given Iranians the strength to fight for freedom,” he said. “Help them liberate themselves and Make Iran Great Again!” THE CARETAKER KING  In June Pahlavi announced he was ready to replace Khamenei’s administration to lead the transition from authoritarianism to democracy.   “Once the regime collapses, we have to have a transitional government as quickly as possible,” he told POLITICO last year. He proposed that a constitutional conference should be held among Iranian representatives to devise a new settlement, to be ratified by the people in a referendum.  The day after that referendum is held, he told POLITICO in February, “that’s the end of my mission in life.”  Asked if he wanted to see a monarchy restored, he said in June: “Democratic options should be on the table. I’m not going to be the one to decide that. My role however is to make sure that no voice is left behind. That all opinions should have the chance to argue their case — it doesn’t matter if they are republicans or monarchists, it doesn’t matter if they’re on the left of center or the right.”  One option he hasn’t apparently excluded might be to restore a permanent monarchy, with a democratically elected government serving in his name.  Pahlavi says he has three clear principles for establishing a new democracy: protecting Iran’s territorial integrity; a secular democratic system that separates religion from the government; and “every principle of human rights incorporated into our laws.” He confirmed to POLITICO that this would include equality and protection against discrimination for all citizens, regardless of their sexual or religious orientation.  COME-BACK CAPITALISM  Over the past year, Pahlavi has been touring Western capitals meeting politicians as well as senior business figures and investors from the world of banking and finance. Iran is a major OPEC oil producer and has the second biggest reserves of natural gas in the world, “which could supply Europe for a long time to come,” he said.  “Iran is the most untapped reserve for foreign investment,” Pahlavi said in February. “If Silicon Valley was to commit for a $100 billion investment, you could imagine what sort of impact that could have. The sky is the limit.”  What he wants to bring about, he says, is a “democratic culture” — even more than any specific laws that stipulate forms of democratic government. He pointed to Iran’s past under the Pahlavi monarchy, saying his grandfather remains a respected figure as a modernizer.  “If it becomes an issue of the family, my grandfather today is the most revered political figure in the architect of modern Iran,” he said in February. “Every chant of the streets of ‘god bless his soul.’ These are the actual slogans people chant on the street as they enter or exit a soccer stadium. Why? Because the intent was patriotic, helping Iran come out of the dark ages. There was no aspect of secular modern institutions from a postal system to a modern army to education which was in the hands of the clerics.”   Pahlavi’s father, the shah, brought in an era of industrialization and economic improvement alongside greater freedom for women, he said. “This is where the Gen Z of Iran is,” he said. “Regardless of whether I play a direct role or not, Iranians are coming out of the tunnel.”  Conversely, many Iranians still associate his father’s regime with out-of-touch elites and the notorious Savak secret police, whose brutality helped fuel the 1979 revolution. NOT SO FAST  Nobody can be sure what happens next in Iran. It may still come down to Trump and perhaps Israel.  Anti-regime demonstrations fill the streets of more than 100 towns and cities across the country of 90 million people. | Neil Hall/EPA Plenty of experts don’t believe the regime is finished, though it is clearly weakened. Even if the protests do result in change, many say it seems more likely that the regime will use a mixture of fear tactics and adaptation to protect itself rather than collapse or be toppled completely.  While reports suggest young people have led the protests and appear to have grown in confidence, recent days have seen a more ferocious regime response, with accounts of hospitals being overwhelmed with shooting victims. The demonstrations could still be snuffed out by a regime with a capacity for violence.  The Iranian opposition remains hugely fragmented, with many leading activists in prison. The substantial diaspora has struggled to find a unity of voice, though Pahlavi tried last year to bring more people on board with his own movement.  Sanam Vakil, an Iran specialist at the Chatham House think tank in London, said Iran should do better than reviving a “failed” monarchy. She added she was unsure how wide Pahlavi’s support really was inside the country. Independent, reliable polling is hard to find and memories of the darker side of the shah’s era run deep. But the exiled prince’s advantage now may be that there is no better option to oversee the collapse of the clerics and map out what comes next. “Pahlavi has name recognition and there is no other clear individual to turn to,” Vakil said. “People are willing to listen to his comments calling on them to go out in the streets.”

Slovakia’s populist Prime Minister Robert Fico announced that U.S. President Donald Trump has invited him to America to sign a nuclear power deal — and attend the FIFA World Cup next summer. “It is an honor for me that yesterday the special envoy of U.S. President D. Trump handed me a written invitation to visit the United States and meet with him,” Fico said in a social media post on Monday. “Together, we aim to support the signing of an intergovernmental agreement between the Slovak Republic and the United States on cooperation in nuclear energy and to exchange views on the most pressing global issues,” he added. “The timeframe of my visit will coincide with the celebrations of the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence and the hosting of the FIFA World Cup.” The invitation comes on the heels of the Dec. 4 publication of the U.S. National Security Strategy, which caused an uproar in Europe for suggesting that the Trump administration will support ideologically aligned European patriotic parties, such as Fico’s leftist-populist and nationalist Smer. Late last week, U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner met with senior figures from that country’s far-right opposition National Rally, while U.S. Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers met with opposition far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party politician Markus Frohnmaier in Washington. The letter from Trump, dated Dec. 11, was given to Fico by U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary James Danly, who was in Bratislava this week. “Our relationship means a great deal to me and reflects the strength of the tremendous bond between the United States of America and Slovakia. Our countries have never been closer. I am confident that, by continuing to work together, we will achieve even greater things — including formalizing our civil nuclear cooperation,” Trump wrote in the letter. Washington and Bratislava are preparing to sign a nuclear power deal that will formally tap Westinghouse, the major American nuclear power company, to build a new nuclear reactor in western Slovakia, with costs estimated at €13 billion to €15 billion. The decision was announced earlier in July and drew criticism from the Slovak opposition after Fico’s government bypassed the tender process to award what is the largest investment project in Slovakia’s history. Slovakia faces a football playoff in March against Kosovo, and then a potential final qualifier against Turkey or Romania in order to reach the 2026 Men’s World Cup in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

DOHA, Qatar — Inside the U.S., President Donald Trump is dogged by rising consumer prices, the Epstein files debacle, and Republicans’ newfound willingness to defy him. But go 100 miles, 1,000 miles, or, as I recently did, 7,000 miles past U.S. borders, and Trump’s domestic challenges — and the sinking poll numbers that accompany them — matter little. The U.S. president remains a behemoth in the eyes of the rest of the world. A person who could wreck another country. Or perhaps the only one who can fix another country’s problems. That’s the sense I got this weekend from talking to foreign officials and global elites at this year’s Doha Forum, a major international gathering focused on diplomacy and geopolitics. Over sweets, caffeine and the buzz of nearby conversations, some members of the jet set wondered if Trump’s domestic struggles will lead him to take more risks abroad — and some hope he does. This comes as Trump faces criticism from key MAGA players who say he’s already too focused on foreign policy. “He doesn’t need Capitol Hill to get work done from a foreign policy standpoint,” an Arab official said of Trump, who, let’s face it, has made it abundantly clear he cares little about Congress. Vuk Jeremic, a former Serbian foreign minister, told me that whether people like Trump or not, “I don’t think that there is any doubt that he is a very, very consequential global actor.” He wasn’t the only one who used the term “consequential.” The word doesn’t carry a moral judgment. A person can be consequential whether they save the world or destroy it. What the word does indicate in this context is the power of the U.S. presidency. The weakest U.S. president is still stronger than the strongest leader of most other countries. America’s wealth, weapons and global reach ensure that. U.S. presidents have long had more latitude and ability to take direct action on foreign policy than domestic policy. They also often turn to the global stage when their national influence fades in their final years in office, when they don’t have to worry about reelection. There’s a reason Barack Obama waited until his final two years in office to restore diplomatic ties with Cuba. In the first year of his second term, Trump has stunned the world repeatedly, on everything from gutting U.S. foreign aid to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. He remains as capricious as ever, shifting sides on everything from Russia’s war on Ukraine to whether he wants to expel Palestinians from Gaza. He seeks a Nobel Peace Prize but is threatening a potential war with Venezuela. Trump managed to jolt the gathering at the glitzy Sheraton resort in Doha by unveiling his National Security Strategy — which astonished foreign onlookers on many levels — in the run-up to the event. The part that left jaws on the floor was its attack on America’s allies in Europe, which it claimed faces “civilizational erasure.” The strategy’s release led one panel moderator to ask the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, whether Trump sees Europe as “the enemy.” Yet, some foreign officials praised Trump’s disruptive moves and said they hope he will keep shaking up a calcified international order that has left many countries behind. Several African leaders in particular said they wanted Trump to get more involved in ending conflicts on their continent, especially Sudan. They don’t care about the many nasty things Trump has said about Africa, waving that off as irrelevant political rhetoric. Trump claims to have already ended seven or eight wars. It’s a wild assertion, not least because some of the conflicts he’s referring to weren’t wars and some of the truces he’s brokered are shaky. When I pointed this out, foreign officials told me to lower my bar. Peace is a process, they stressed. If Trump can get that process going or rolling faster, it’s a win. Maybe there are still clashes between Rwanda and Congo. But at least Trump is forcing the two sides to talk and agree to framework deals, they suggested. “You should be proud of your president,” one African official said. (I granted him and several others anonymity to candidly discuss sensitive diplomatic issues involving the U.S.) Likewise, there’s an appreciation in many diplomatic corners about the economic lens Trump imposes on the world. Wealthy Arab states, such as Qatar, already are benefiting from such commercial diplomacy. Others want in, too. “He’s been very clear that his Africa policy should focus on doing business with Africa, and to me, that’s very progressive,” said Mthuli Ncube, Zimbabwe’s finance minister. He added that one question in the global diplomatic community is whether the next U.S. president — Democrat or Republican — will adopt Trump’s “creativity.” The diplomats and others gathered in Doha were well-aware that Trump appreciates praise but also sometimes respects those who stand up to him. So one has to tread carefully. Kallas, for instance, downplayed the Trump team’s broadsides against Europe in the National Security Strategy. Intentionally or not, her choice reflected the power differential between the U.S. and the EU. “The U.S. is still our biggest ally,” Kallas insisted. Privately, another European official I spoke to was fuming. The strategy’s accusations were “very disturbing,” they said. The official agreed, nonetheless, that Trump is too powerful for European countries to do much beyond stage some symbolic diplomatic protests. Few Trump administration officials attended the Doha Forum. The top names were Matt Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, and Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey. Donald Trump Jr. — not a U.S. official, but certainly influential — also made an appearance. Several foreign diplomats expressed optimism that Trump’s quest for a Nobel Peace Prize will guide him to take actions on the global stage that will ultimately bring more stability in the world — even if it is a rocky ride. A British diplomat said they were struck by Trump’s musings about gaining entry to heaven. Maybe a nervousness about the afterlife could induce Trump to, say, avoid a conflagration with Venezuela? “He’s thinking about his legacy,” the diplomat said. Even Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of State whom Trump defeated in the 2016 presidential race, was measured in her critiques. Clinton said “there’s something to be said for the dramatic and bold action” Trump takes. But she warned that the Trump team doesn’t do enough to ensure his efforts, including peace deals, have lasting effect. “There has to be so much follow-up,” she said during one forum event. “And there is an aversion within the administration to the kind of work that is done by Foreign Service officers, diplomats, others who are on the front lines trying to fulfill these national security objectives.” Up until the final minute of his presidency, Trump will have extraordinary power that reaches far past America’s shores. That’s likely to be the case even if the entire Republican Party has turned on him. At the moment, he has more than three years to go. Perhaps he will end immigration to the U.S., abandon Ukraine to Russia’s aggression or strike a nuclear deal with Iran. After all, Trump is, as Zimbabwe’s Ncube put it, not lacking in “creativity.”