NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Sunday offered a full-throated endorsement of President Donald Trump’s military efforts against Iran and also said he expects the nations of NATO to come together to support Trump. “What I know is that we always come together,” Rutte told host Margaret Brennan on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Rutte has consistently been supportive of Trump even as some of the leading European powers — noting that NATO is intended to be a defensive alliance — have expressed reluctance to help Trump with the Iran war, including with U.S. efforts to make the Strait of Hormuz safe for the passage of oil tankers. Trump, for his part, has lashed out at NATO. “Without the U.S.A., NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! They didn’t want to join the fight to stop a Nuclear Powered Iran,” he wrote on Truth Social on Friday. “Now that fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER!” Rutte, while expressing reluctance to criticize the European leaders, said of Trump: “He’s doing this to make the whole world safe.” A former prime minister of the Netherlands, Rutte told Brennan it was taking the European powers some time to come around because they had been left out of the initial planning in an effort to preserve the element of surprise of the American and Israeli attacks. “I understand the president’s frustration that it takes some time, but again I also ask for some understanding because nations had to prepare for this not knowing,” Rutte said. In supporting the current military campaign, Rutte contrasted the military actions against Iran with the world’s efforts to prevent North Korea from acquiring a nuclear weapon. “We have seen with North Korea if we negotiate for too long, you might pass the moment when you can still get this thing done and North Korea now has the nuclear capability,” he said, saying a nuclear-armed Iran would be a clear threat to Israel, Europe and the stability of the world.

President Donald Trump’s war in Iran is testing the bounds of his “America First” agenda. So far, his supporters are sticking with him. New results from The POLITICO Poll show that Trump’s 2024 voters are willing to accept the offensive, even as some of them say it violates MAGA principles or breaks his campaign promise not to start new wars. Their support is driven in large part by their unwavering trust in the president and his assurances the U.S. will only be involved “short term.” But there are signs Trump’s hold could grow tenuous as he intensifies military action. Trump voters are more split on backing the war if it results in more lives lost. The president has called the strikes a success, but America’s increasing military build-up in the Middle East has spurred fears that the intervention will involve ground troops and result in a much longer conflict than expected. The war has drawn searing rebukes from prominent anti-interventionist voices within the MAGA movement including Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, prompted the resignation of a Trump official earlier this week and fueled concerns over rising oil and gas prices ahead of a midterm election set to hinge on the economy. “The president has to be careful,” said Barrett Marson, a GOP strategist in Arizona. “If things turn just a little bad or if during the summer we are still entangled, those voices will not only get louder but there will be more of them. Trump needs to stick to his 4 to 6 weeks, which is fast approaching.” And yet, Trump has retained deep loyalty from his supporters on one of the most consequential decisions of his second term. For now, his base is willing to accept his version of “America First.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article is part of an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com. Seventy percent of Trump’s 2024 voters support last month’s strikes, according to the survey conducted from March 13 to 18 by London-based Public First. Meanwhile, 56 percent of former Vice President Kamala Harris’ voters oppose them. Support for the war cuts across both flanks of Trump’s coalition, from self-identified MAGA voters (81 percent) to those who supported him in 2024 but don’t identify with the movement (61 percent). It’s a rare point of alignment for a bloc that’s splintering on other key issues. The Trump administration has offered shifting explanations for the rationale — and goals — of its strikes on Iran, ranging from preventing the country from developing a nuclear weapon to regime change. “What matters most to the American people is having a Commander-in-Chief who takes decisive action to eliminate threats and keep them safe, which is exactly what President Trump is doing with the ongoing successful Operation Epic Fury,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement. “President Trump campaigned proudly on his promise to deny the Iranian regime the ability to develop a nuclear weapon, which is what this noble operation is seeking to accomplish.” MAGA TRUSTS TRUMP The most convincing rationale for voters, the survey found, was that the strikes were necessary to head off Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Among the 44 percent of Americans who support the strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, nearly half — 46 percent — say they back the action because the country was developing nuclear weapons. Trump supporters are even more swayed by that argument. A majority of both MAGA and non-MAGA Trump voters — 54 percent and 56 percent, respectively — say they support the strikes because they believe Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Two-thirds of MAGA Trump voters and more than half of non-MAGA Trump voters believe Iran posed an active national security threat to the U.S. at the time of the attack. Another explanation for their support: MAGA trusts Trump. Fifty-three percent say they back the strikes because they trust him to do the right thing. That trust shapes how long his supporters, and his critics, believe the conflict will last. Six of every 10 Harris 2024 voters say they expect the intervention to be closer to a “forever war,” but six of every 10 Trump voters say the opposite, that they expect the intervention to be short, underscoring their confidence in the president’s suggestion that he will keep it contained. Trump voters also don’t mind so much that the president broke his campaign promise not to start wars in office, a clear sign that they’re willing to accept caveats to what counts as “America First,” as long as it’s being sold by Trump himself. A 35 percent plurality of Trump 2024 voters — with similar shares among MAGA and non-MAGA voters — say the war in Iran broke that campaign pledge, but was necessary given the change in circumstances. Thirty percent say the war has not broken the pledge, while 21 percent say it broke the pledge unnecessarily and 14 percent are unsure. Additionally, a plurality of Trump voters, 46 percent, say the war in Iran is in line with MAGA principles. “MAGA is locked in for Trump. The bigger issue isn’t about him or even Iran, it’s that foreign conflicts expose a real fault line between more hawkish Republicans and a rising isolationist wing,” said Republican strategist Jeff Burton. “That tension is only going to grow as 2028 gets closer, and it’s going to be a defining challenge for whoever tries to take the MAGA mantle.” SIGNS OF STRAIN Still, as the war nears its fourth week, the survey suggests there are limits to that support, especially among Republicans who don’t identify so heavily with the MAGA movement. The growing number of U.S. casualties in particular is a dividing line. A majority of MAGA Trump voters, 58 percent, say the U.S. must achieve its goals in Iran, even if it means more American lives are lost. Non-MAGA Trump voters are more split: 44 percent say the same, but 41 percent believe the U.S. must not lose more American lives, even if that means the country’s goals are left unfinished. There are also signs of concern over whether Trump has a concrete plan for his actions in Iran — an issue that has emerged as a sticking point for lawmakers in Washington, including some anti-interventionist Republicans, who worry that Trump’s lack of a clear exit strategy will only prolong the war. Fifty percent of non-MAGA Trump voters believe the president does not have a plan, though 31 percent say they trust his actions will resolve the conflict anyway. The intra-party rift is surfacing in real-time inside Trump’s orbit. The abrupt resignation of Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, over his opposition to the war drew a sharp rebuke from the White House. Other key voices, from Carlson and Kelly to former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Trump-friendly podcaster Joe Rogan, have ramped up their criticism of the president. Still, the president has brushed aside the vocal criticism of him and other staunch backers of the war. “THEY ARE NOT MAGA, I AM,” he wrote on Truth Social earlier this week. “And MAGA includes not allowing Iran, a Sick, Demented, and Violent Terrorist Regime, to have a Nuclear Weapon to blow up the United States of America, the Middle East and, ultimately, the rest of the World.” And for now, his supporters appear to agree. Anna Wiederkehr and Jessie Blaeser contributed.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday fumed at longtime American allies he says aren’t doing enough to help the U.S. and Israel in their war against Iran, now arguing that their assistance was never needed after spending days publicly requesting their help. “Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID!” he wrote on Truth Social. “Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!” America’s top allies have largely resisted the president’s calls to take on an active role in the Middle East war, which the U.S. and Israel launched in February, arguing Iran presented an imminent threat. In recent days, Trump has repeatedly asked global allies — and some geopolitical foes, including China — for help securing the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway is key for trade, and disruptions to the international energy market have sent oil prices spiking. International leaders largely rebuffed those calls from the president. “We did not start this war,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Monday. Trump’s push for European assistance was tantamount to “blackmail,” Luxembourg’s Deputy Prime Minister Xavier Bettel said to reporters. French President Emmanuel Macron panned the strikes on Iran as illegal just days after the conflict began. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the U.K. “will not be drawn into a wider war” in the region. In the meantime, some domestic Trump allies worry that securing the Strait of Hormuz and jump-starting the global oil trade could require sending American troops into Iran. The president, who has long sown doubt in the value of NATO and mused about pulling the U.S. out of the alliance, on Sunday cautioned that NATO allies faced a “very bad future” if they refrained from aiding U.S. efforts to reopen the waterway. But their reticence did not come as a shock, he wrote on his social media platform Tuesday. “I am not surprised by their action, however, because I always considered NATO, where we spend Hundreds of Billions of Dollars per year protecting these same Countries, to be a one way street — We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us, in particular, in a time of need,” Trump said. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a key proponent of the operation in Iran and a close allies of the president, said he spoke to the president over the phone on Tuesday. Graham wrote on X Tuesday that “never heard him so angry in my life.” “I share that anger given what’s at stake,” he said. “The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive.”

The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran has triggered the largest supply disruption in global oil market history, according to a Thursday report from the International Energy Agency, as tensions escalate along a critical waterway for international trade. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway responsible for carrying roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, has seen oil and product flows plunge from around 20 million barrels a day to “a trickle,” the agency wrote. The price of oil has also “gyrated wildly” since the start of the war, the report read. Rising energy costs have been a central focus of the Trump administration since the beginning of the U.S.-Israeli operation in February. The White House has said it could offer naval escorts and political risk insurance for tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The president has also loosened sanctions on India’s acquisition of Russian oil. Still, global oil supply will likely drop by 8 million barrels per day in March, according to the IEA, with “direct damage to energy infrastructure” also contributing to supply shocks. “With nearly 20 [million barrels per day] of crude and product exports currently disrupted and limited alternative options to bypass the world’s most critical oil transit chokepoint, producers and consumers globally are feeling the strain,” the agency wrote in its report. IEA member countries on Wednesday committed to releasing 400 million barrels of oil in an effort to stabilize supply and bring down energy prices. And U.S. Central Command is now striking Iranian vessels believed to be placing naval mines throughout the Strait of Hormuz. But President Donald Trump on Thursday seemingly dismissed the market disruptions as having a dramatic impact on the U.S. economy. “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” he wrote on Truth Social Thursday morning. “BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stopping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destroying the Middle East and, indeed, the World. I won’t ever let that happen!”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Trotz Rekordwerten bei der Landtagswahl in Baden-Württemberg herrscht in der AfD-Spitze dicke Luft. Pauline von Pezold und Frederik Schindler blicken hinter die Kulissen des vermeintlichen Triumphs. Alice Weidel und Tino Chrupalla distanzieren sich demonstrativ von Markus Frohnmaier. Der war zwar der Spitzenkandidat, zeigte aber schon im Wahlkampf, dass er gar kein Interesse daran hat, nach der Wahl tatsächlich nach Baden-Württemberg zu kommen. Nicht einmal einen Listenplatz hatte Frohnmaier. Das angestrebte Amt als Ministerpräsident oder auch nur eine Regierungsbeteiligung waren ohnehin immer unrealistisch. Mit einer Reise in die USA zur „Make America Great Again“-Bewegung wenige Tage vor dem Wahlsonntag trieb Frohnmaier es auf die Spitze. Wie sehr dieser strategische Reinfall ihm jetzt intern schadet, hört ihr in dieser Folge. Außerdem decken Pauline und Frederik eine gezielte Kampagne des AfD-Abgeordneten Matthias Moosdorf auf. Moosdorf verbreitet auf Social Media die Lüge, Zugang zu Schutzräumen in Israel gäbe es nur noch für Juden. Die beiden ordnen ein, warum sich der Abgeordnete dabei unkritisch auf teils KI-generierte Fake News stützt und wie scharf der israelische Botschafter in Deutschland sowie der Antisemitismusbeauftragte der Bundesregierung auf diese Propaganda reagieren. Im mächtigen NRW-Landesverband der Partei ist die Entscheidung über den künftigen Kurs gefallen. Auf dem Landesparteitag in Marl konnte sich der gemäßigt gebende Landeschef Martin Vincentz zwar knapp behaupten, doch das Lager um den rechtsextremen Matthias Helferich sitzt ihm nun im Vorstand direkt im Nacken. Pauline und Frederik analysieren, was das für Vincentz und die NRW-AfD bedeutet, wie es den anstehenden Wahlkampf zur Landtagswahl 2027 beeinflusst und welche Rolle die extreme NRW-Parteijugend bei all dem spielt. „Inside AfD“ ist der POLITICO-Deutschland-Podcast über die umstrittenste Partei des Landes. Trotz Radikalisierung und Beobachtung durch den Verfassungsschutz wächst die AfD weiter. Wie ist das möglich? Was treibt ihre Anhänger, Strategen und Gegner an? Wie funktioniert das Innenleben der Partei? Und was bedeutet ihr Aufstieg für das politische System Deutschlands? Antworten liefern immer mittwochs ⁠Pauline von Pezold⁠ von POLITICO und ⁠Frederik Schindler⁠ von WELT — unaufgeregt, aber kritisch. Fragen und Feedback gern an ⁠insideafd@politico.eu⁠. 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

President Donald Trump outlined his administration’s ultimate goal for the war in Iran on Friday: “unconditional surrender” by the Islamic Republic’s leaders. In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote that “there will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” Following Tehran’s submission to the ongoing military campaign should be “the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s),” Trump said. Then, the U.S. and its allies will begin the work to “bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.” Trump’s message — coming after days of mixed signals from administration officials — articulates that the U.S. has no intention of providing Tehran with an off-ramp for a deal. It also clarifies the administration’s ultimate aims nearly one full week into a war that has already claimed several American lives, in addition to those of U.S. allies and Iranian citizens. The post diverges from what the president himself said when he announced the U.S.’ operation against Iran last Saturday. In a video statement at the time, Trump said the administration’s goals were to “destroy” Tehran’s missiles and its missile industry, “annihilate” its navy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Now, the president has expanded those aims to include regime change. But after weathering decades of resistance from both within and abroad, the remaining Iranian leaders say they will not capitulate easily to U.S. demands. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on social media earlier Friday that some countries had begun “mediation efforts” and that “we are committed to lasting peace in the region yet we have no hesitation in defending our nation’s dignity & sovereignty.” He continued: “Mediation should address those who underestimated the Iranian people and ignited this conflict.”

First, conservatives opposed to military intervention overseas put their trust in President Donald Trump as he swept back into power. Then, the faction in his inner circle that backed the administration’s “peace through strength” motto looked to Vice President JD Vance and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth as their champions. Now, as all three men are supporting the war in Iran, the pro-restraint wing of the Republican Party is searching for fresh leadership. The fissure within Trump’s foreign policy community, described by seven White House allies, threatens to splinter a key element of the administration — particularly as it faces pressure to execute the Iran war while keeping American troops from entering the country. “I would characterize the current moment as one of fear and paralysis,” said Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the conservative Cato Institute. “There’s also a group of people who had aspirations or have aspirations to go into the government, who are asking themselves whether they still want to do so, and who are biting their tongues while they figure out the answer to that question.” Restraint-minded Republicans once thought Trump had their back. He’d promised not to start new foreign wars on the campaign trail. His vice president and Defense secretary spent the first year of the administration railing against foreign interventionism. Trump’s National Security Strategy even said his foreign policy leaned toward non-interventionism. But the operation in Venezuela and Iran have changed all that. The back-and-forth over the war has deepened the confusion — even within the MAGA movement — about what Trump’s foreign policy is really about. Any notion that the administration would set a “high bar” for military interventions is now “dead in the water,” said a former Trump administration official, who like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “I just can’t wrap my mind around how, given some of the things that are being contemplated, we would pivot back to that.” Trump, in one of several dozen phone interviews over the last few days, brushed off criticism from political allies upset over his abandonment of the America First mantra he ran on. “MAGA is Trump,” he said. The president’s clear expectation that his supporters will back whatever he does, even if it’s a 180-degree turn from long-held positions, applies to his most senior aides as well, according to an ally of the White House. “Vance and others may have their own views, but they know what they signed up for,” the person said. “Their personal views are not relevant or operable most of the time.” The White House rejected the idea that the president was forsaking his supporters. “President Trump is courageously protecting the United States from the deadly threat posed by the rogue Iranian regime — and that is as America First as it gets,” said Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson. The entire national security team is working together “to end Iran’s ability to possess a nuclear weapon, use or develop ballistic missiles, arm proxies, or use its now-defeated navy.” Trump has so far averted congressional limits on the five-day old military campaign. A war powers resolution to curb the president’s military authority failed in the House and Senate. But the deaths of six U.S. service members, loss of three F-15 jets in a friendly fire incident and the escalation of the fighting beyond Iran have raised concerns among Trump allies on Capitol Hill. “America First was supposed to be a rejection of the globalist war machine,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), one of few Republicans to vote for the war powers measure. Trump is far from the first U.S. president to go back on his campaign pledge to end foreign wars. Woodrow Wilson won the 1916 election promising to keep the U.S. out of combat, only to enter World War I five months later. George W. Bush campaigned against nation building in 2000, only to order U.S. troops to fight in Iraq three years later. But a massive military campaign in Iran, and muddled messaging about its purpose, is a turning point for some in the foreign policy establishment. Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby told House lawmakers on Tuesday that the U.S. would not be involved in an “endless war.” By Wednesday, Hegseth was saying war with Iran had “only just begun.” Hegseth on Tuesday said the war was “not about regime change.” But by Thursday, the president was announcing the U.S. would be directly involved in picking the country’s next leader. The Defense Department denied any discrepancy. “President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have been crystal clear from day one on our objectives: destroy the Iranian regime’s missiles and obliterate their missile industry; annihilate the Iranian regime’s Navy; ensure the regime’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces … and guarantee that Iran can NEVER obtain a nuclear weapon,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement. One person familiar with the Trump administration’s deliberations on Iran said restraint-minded officials were already uncomfortable with last summer’s Pentagon strikes on Tehran’s nuclear program and the Venezuela operation. But they were indignant about the new U.S. war in the Middle East that has not been tied to a legal authorization in Congress or a strict operational timeline. The U.S.-Israel war has also confused allies, who thought American military support abroad was receding as the administration focused on the homeland. “We’re waiting for the next turn,” said one foreign diplomat. “For months we were told that the U.S. was looking inward and the homeland was the focus and regime change was not a goal, but now two regimes have fallen in military action — so which is it?” But some have yet to take side in the war of ideas within Trump’s team. A person close to the president’s national security team said that clear divisions among top aides haven’t fully developed because the administration is still so unsettled about its endgame in Iran. “It’s not coherent or clear yet,” the person said, “because they still don’t know what the goals are.”

President Donald Trump is on the warpath: In an interview Thursday, he dismissed concerns about the Iran war, told POLITICO the United States would help choose Iran’s next leader, predicted the downfall of the Cuban regime and attacked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the tech giant Anthropic. The president is facing domestic political backlash on numerous fronts, including criticism of the Iran war from within the MAGA coalition and unrelenting attacks from Democrats over the cost of living. But speaking in a phone call Thursday, Trump was entirely on offense. He brushed off worries about the impact of the Iran war on gas prices and U.S. ammunition reserves, and he insisted that the military onslaught was popular with voters. Many recent public polls show the opposite is true, although a survey released Thursday by Fox News found voters have mixed opinions on Iran. “People are loving what’s happening,” Trump insisted. He predicted that Iran’s government would not be the last to buckle in a Trump-initiated confrontation: “Cuba’s going to fall, too.” “We cut off all oil, all money, or we cut off everything coming in from Venezuela, which was the sole source. And they want to make a deal,” he said. INTERVENTION IN CUBA Asked whether the United States was playing a role in the Cuban government’s demise, Trump responded: “Well, what do you think? For 50 years, that’s icing on the cake. Venezuela is doing fantastically. [Delcy Rodríguez] is doing a fantastic job. The relationship with them is great.” Trump also confirmed the United States is in touch with Cuba’s communist leadership as instability on the island intensifies following the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. “They need help. We are talking to Cuba,” Trump said. And he suggested the island’s worsening situation is partly the result of U.S. pressure, including cutting off the Venezuelan oil supplies that once sustained Havana. “Well, it’s because of my intervention, intervention that is happening,” Trump said. “Obviously, otherwise they wouldn’t have this problem. We cut off all oil, all money, … everything coming in from Venezuela, which was the sole source.” “How long have you been hearing about Cuba — Cuba, Cuba — for 50 years?” Trump added. “And that’s one of the small ones for me.” CONFIDENCE ON IRAN Speaking as U.S. military operations against Iran continue to dominate the administration’s foreign policy agenda, Trump indicated the United States intends to play a significant role in shaping Iran’s postwar political landscape. Asked how much influence he expects to have over Iran’s future leadership, Trump replied: “I’m going to have a big impact, or they’re not going to have any settlement, because we’re not going to have to go do this again.” “We’ll work with the people and the regime to make sure that somebody gets there that can nicely build Iran but without nuclear weapons,” Trump said. The president also weighed in on the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son, who is in contention to be the new supreme leader saying, “Now they’re looking at the son. The reason the father wouldn’t give it to the son is they say he’s incompetent.” Trump emphasized the U.S. is going to “work with them to help them make the proper choice” because he wants to avoid having a head of Iran “that’s going to lead to having to do this again in another 10 years.” Trump projected confidence about the campaign’s trajectory and dismissed concerns that rising gas prices tied to the conflict could hurt Republicans politically ahead of the November elections that could break the party’s power trifecta in Washington. “People are loving what’s happening,” Trump said. “We’re taking out a threat to the United States of America, major threat, … and doing it like nobody’s ever seen before.” Trump described the U.S. campaign against Iran as highly controlled while boasting about overwhelming military capacity despite Pentagon officials and Hill lawmakers’ concern over dwindling weapons supplies. “We’re being surgical,” he said. “We have unlimited supply of weapons, unlimited. … We have thousands, thousands, of them.” The president also painted a picture of Iran’s military capability being effectively dismantled. “They have no navy. They have no air force. They have no detection of air. It’s all wiped out. Their radar is all wiped out. Their military is decimated,” Trump said. “All they have is guts.” IMPATIENCE WITH ZELENSKYY Even as Iran remains a top focus, Trump said negotiations over the war in Ukraine continue. And he again expressed frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “Zelenksyy he has to get on the ball, and he has to get a deal done,” Trump said. On the other hand, Trump said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is prepared to negotiate an end to the war. “I think Putin is ready to make a deal,” he said. Trump has said that before. When pressed on what Zelenskyy’s obstacle is to a peace deal, Trump declined to elaborate but maintained that Ukraine’s leader is not showing enough willingness to negotiate. “It’s unthinkable that he’s the obstacle,” Trump said. “You don’t have the cards. Now he’s got even less cards.” ‘I FIRED ANTHROPIC’ Trump also stepped into the increasingly contentious dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic over the AI startup’s refusal to give the military unfettered access to its technology. “Well, I fired Anthropic. Anthropic is in trouble because I fired [them] like dogs, because they shouldn’t have done that,” he said. And underscored his support for his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “You see how good Pete’s doing, and you see how good the military. And so we have an amazing military. The whole world is seeing that now I built the military in my first term, and I’m using it in my second term,” he said.

Helsinki is set to ease its ban on nuclear weapons, allowing the import, transport and storage of the devastating armaments on Finnish territory, Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen said Thursday. Häkkänen told a press conference that the country’s legislative ban on nukes, dating back to 1980, was no longer relevant in the current geopolitical context. “The legislation does not meet the needs that Finland has as a NATO member,” Häkkänen said, according to regional media. Finland became a NATO member following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The country shares more than 1,000 kilometers of border with Russia, and has been accelerating and revamping its defense plans.  Häkkänen said nuclear weapons would be allowed to be transported onto Finnish territory if national defense needs required it, Finnish media reported. The minister declined to provide specific scenarios, but ruled out the possible deployment of nuclear warheads on Finnish soil. Finland is a signatory to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Within Europe, France and the United Kingdom possess their own nuclear weapons, while the United States stores nuclear warheads in several NATO countries including Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. French President Emmanuel Macron recently announced plans to increase his country’s nuclear arsenal and to cooperate more closely with European partners, including the potential temporary deployment of French nuclear-capable fighters abroad.

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.