“We don’t need anyone’s help!” Donald Trump’s outburst in the form of a post continues to resonate hours after having published it in Truth Social after verifying that no ally, neither European nor Asian, wants to share the military costs and the lives of soldiers of a war that they neither wanted nor asked for nor is convenient for them and that, furthermore, many of them consider openly illegal.
The president of the United States has come face to face with the consequences of an attack in which more and more seams are being seen, whether through motivations, justifications, deadlines, economic impacts and solutions.
“I’m not surprised,” Trump said in his laments about his allies, “because I have always considered NATO, an organization in which we spend billions of dollars a year to protect precisely these same countries, as a one-way street: we protect them, but they do nothing for us, especially in times of need.” Trump’s anger has reached such a point that he has flirted with the idea of reconsidering the US’s accession to the military alliance he commands. “It’s something we should reflect on,” he said, adding erroneously: “It’s not something I need Congress for.” Despite that, Trump cannot executively remove the US from NATO without going through the legislature.
Trump, as he always does, deliberately forgets that the only time NATO has activated Article 5, the collective defense clause, was in the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. And, also, forget that Article 5 is activated when a member of the Alliance is attacked by a third State, not when an ally attacks another country unilaterally and without aggression.
That cry from Trump, which shows the loneliness in which he finds himself in the international community despite representing the most powerful country on earth, also reflects a call to arms at a time when the MAGA schism over the war in Iran has already escalated to the Trump Administration.
The fights between ultra commentators about whether the America First with bombing Iran and losing 14 soldiers’ lives, or if the Islamophobia of some or the anti-Israeli positions of others weigh more, they have already jumped to the heart of the Trump Government.
Thus, Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), announced his resignation this Tuesday, declaring that “Iran did not represent an imminent threat.” And he added, in line with commentators such as former Fox host Tucker Carlson and former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example: “It is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful ‘lobby’ in the United States.”
Some media outlets are publishing, citing White House sources, that Trump’s entourage suspected that Kent was a leaker and that they had removed him from making decisions related to Iran, even that they had asked his boss, the director of the Department of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, for his head. However, the US president, when asked about it, preferred to accuse Kent of being “weak” in terms of security, the position for which Trump himself appointed him.
“I always thought he was a good guy, but I always thought he was weak on security; very weak on security,” the US president said in the Oval Office: “When I read his statement, I realized that it is a good thing that he is no longer in office, because he said that Iran did not represent a threat. Iran was a threat.”
No political solution to the war
Meanwhile, on the battle front, any possibility of achieving a political solution to the war is receding. US intelligence analyzes confirm that the Iranian regime is weakened, but is consolidating its power with an even tougher line and more weight of the Revolutionary Guard, according to reports. informado The Washington Post and Reuters. “It’s not just that it was predictable,” say the sources cited by the American newspaper. “It had been predicted. They had told them beforehand.”
In this sense, the assassination – not confirmed by Tehran – of the powerful head of Iranian security, Ali Larijani, perceived as one of the few figures capable of betting on a negotiated solution, further distances that possibility.
Larijani was among the type of insiders who could play a role in any future political deal. The loss of figures like him can make it even more difficult to manage the negotiations or configure the political solution to the war.
Hamidreza Azizi
— SWP Berlin
Two decades ago, as the chief nuclear negotiator with Europe, Larijani’s attempts to reach a compromise led to a confrontation with part of the then Iranian regime. He had an image of a moderate and, in some ways, acted as a recognizable voice for Iran abroad. Although he later hardened his positions, he remained a potentially powerful interlocutor within the Iranian political system, experts say.
“Larijani’s successor will be appointed by the Revolutionary Guard. With each assassination, the United States and Israel provoke greater radicalization of the Iranian leaders,” says Vali Nasr, author of ‘The Iranian Grand Strategy’. “This portends a bleak future for Iran, Iranians, and the region and ultimately makes it much more difficult for the United States to disengage from a never-ending conflict in the region.”
Hamidreza Azizi, a researcher at the German think tank SWP specializing in Iran, agrees: “As for the war itself, the immediate impact is likely to be operationally limited. However, politically, it could harden positions in Tehran and reinforce the narrative that the war is an existential struggle aimed at eliminating the entire leadership of the Islamic Republic.
“Larijani was also among the type of insiders who could play a role in any future political agreement. The loss of figures like him may make it even more difficult to manage the negotiations or shape the political exit from the war,” Azizi adds.
The Trump administration has rebuffed efforts by its allies in the Middle East to try to open diplomatic negotiations. For his part, Iran’s supreme leader has also rejected de-escalation offers presented by intermediaries, according to sources close to the Iranian leadership.
“Iran has not sought any ceasefire. There have been approaches, but without concreteness,” official Iranian sources told elDiario.es shortly after the first information about Larijani’s death. “We have not delivered any proposals. We are well prepared to continue militarily and everything is planned for long-term resistance.”
The official sources consulted by elDiario.es assure that the US misinterpreted the “maximum containment” policy applied by Iran. “They thought we were weak, but there will no longer be maximum containment and we will do everything you can imagine. We will not open fronts, but we will return them. That is, if they attack a bank, we will attack the US banks in the region.” The official discourse is that Iran has been preparing for this moment for 10 months—since the 12-day war in June 2025. “We have no problem continuing the war. When the US stops its aggression, then we will decide.”
Although the number of daily attacks by Iran has been reduced by 22% compared to the previous week, according to ACLED data, Tehran still has possible new levers that could escalate the conflict, such as an intervention by the Yemeni Houthis, who have not yet entered the conflict. “Maybe the time has not come yet. When the time comes, they can do it,” say the same sources. The US and Israel have also reduced the average daily attacks against Iran by 11% compared to the previous week.
Source: www.eldiario.es
