In his own words: Trump's Iran strike tests his rhetoric on ending wars
During his campaigns for president, Donald Trump spoke of the need to stop engaging in 'endless' or 'forever wars,' and said removing 'warmongers and America-last globalists' was among his second-term foreign policy priorities.
Trump's move to strike Iranian nuclear sites risks embroiling the United States in the sort of conflict he once derided. Like other recent American presidents, Trump said he would not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. In recent months, he had held out hope that diplomacy could avoid the strike he announced Saturday.
Trump's consideration of military action had opened a schism among his 'Make American Great Again' movement and drew criticism from some of its most high-profile members.
Here's a look at some of Trump's rhetoric before his announcement Saturday about the strikes:
2024 campaign
Trump often drew lines of contrasts with his Republican primary opponents. In January 2024, at a New Hampshire rally, he referred to former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who was U.N. ambassador during Trump's first term, as a 'warmonger' whose mentality on foreign policy is, 'Let's kill people all over the place and let's make a lot of money for those people that make the messes.'
During a Jan. 6, 2024, rally before the Iowa caucuses, Trump told supporters that returning him to the White House would allow the country to 'turn the page forever on those foolish, stupid days of never-ending wars. They never ended.'
Rolling out his foreign policy priorities during that campaign — something Trump's orbit called ' Agenda 47 ' — he posted a video online in which he talked of how he was 'the only president in generations who didn't start a war.'
In that video, Trump called himself 'the only president who rejected the catastrophic advice of many of Washington's Generals, bureaucrats, and the so-called diplomats who only know how to get us into conflict, but they don't know how to get us out.'
First term
In his first term, Trump often referenced his anti-interventionist pledge. During his 2019 State of the Union address, he said, 'As a candidate for president, I loudly pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.'
There were frequent clashes with some of his advisers over whether or not the United States should take a more involved stance abroad. That included his hawkish national security adviser John Bolton, with whom Trump had strong disagreements on Iran, Afghanistan and other global challenges.
As Turkey launched a military operation into Syria targeting Kurdish forces, Trump in October 2019 posted a series of tweets citing his anti-interventionist stance.
'Turkey has been planning to attack the Kurds for a long time. They have been fighting forever,' Trump posted Oct. 10, 2019, on the platform then known as Twitter. 'We have no soldiers or Military anywhere near the attack area. I am trying to end the ENDLESS WARS.'
A week later, he reiterated his position: 'I was elected on getting out of these ridiculous endless wars, where our great Military functions as a policing operation to the benefit of people who don't even like the USA.'
2016 campaign
Candidate Trump was vociferous in his disdain for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling them both mistakes.
'We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place,' Trump told CNN in October 2015, referencing Afghanistan.
'We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have the oil,' he said of the Iraq War during a March 2016 town hall hosted by the same network.
During a primary debate, Trump engaged in a terse exchange with Jeb Bush particularly over U.S. military action in Iraq, launched by President George W. Bush, the Florida governor's brother.
'We should have never been in Iraq,' Trump said in February 2016. 'They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none.'
What about earlier?
Trump's press secretary said Wednesday that the president's beliefs that Iran should not achieve nuclear armament predated his time in politics. And his earlier writings indicate that, while candidate Trump has said he opposed the Iraq War, those sentiments were different before the conflict began.
In his 2000 book 'The America We Deserve,' the businessman wrote that he felt a military strike on Iraq might be needed, given the unknown status of that nation's nuclear capabilities.
'I'm no warmonger,' Trump wrote. 'But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don't, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.' ___
Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. Why It Matters The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. What To Know The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. What People Are Saying Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. What Happens Next Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Hard-Hitting World Leaves EU Soft Power Stranded
Last week, with uncertainty raging over whether the US would join Israel in striking Iran, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto delivered an elegy for a soft-power Europe that looked stranded in a hard-power world. 'We talk about Europe as if Europe counted for something,' he said. 'But its time is over, and I say it with sadness.' It turned out to be a fitting prelude to the weekend's events as Europe's last-ditch push for diplomacy with Tehran ended with American bombers striking Iranian nuclear sites. It speaks to wider anxiety over Europe's geopolitical future as drones and missiles continue to pound Ukraine, tensions rise in the Taiwan strait and the Middle East erupts. Yes, the combination of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has finally stung the European Union out of complacency, with the prospect of rearmament projects worth €800 billion ($920 billion) sending share prices soaring and industrial capacity whirring into life. German weapons maker Rheinmetall AG, for example, is outperforming tech darling Nvidia Corp. and taking Gucci parent Kering SA's place on the Euro Stoxx 50 index. Yet at the same time, we're a long way from a European defense worthy of the name.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iran's foreign minister brands Donald Trump a 'lawless bully' as Keir Starmer holds Cobra meeting
Iran's foreign minister has slammed Donald Trump as a 'lawless bully' after the United States launched strikes on the state's nuclear facilities. Three sites were attacked in Iran overnight, which President Trump claimed had been 'completely and fully obliterated'. It followed days of speculation over whether the US would take action amid an escalating situation between Israel and Iran. READ MORE: Donald Trump confirms US airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities READ MORE: Jet2 issues travel warning to UK tourists flying to popular European holiday destination In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer is due to chair a Cobra meeting on Sunday afternoon following the US strikes. The government has said the UK had no involvement in last night's strikes, but was aware of Mr Trump's decision. Speaking at a press conference this morning (June 22), Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi described the Trump administration as 'warmongering', while he warned that diplomacy was not currently possible. "Silence in the face of such blatant aggression will plunge the world into an unprecedented level of danger and chaos," he said. "Humanity has come too far as a species to allow a lawless bully to take us back to the law of the jungle." The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped. Mr Araghchi insisted that while the 'door to diplomacy' should always be open, 'this is not the case right now'. He added: "The warmongering, lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far reaching implications of its act of aggression." Mr Araghchi said 'there is no red line' that the US has not crossed, adding: "The most dangerous one was what happened only last night when they crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities only." Satellite images taken on Sunday show damage to the mountainside at the underground site at Fordo. The images, by Planet Labs PBC, show the once-brown mountain now has parts turned grey and its contours appear slightly different than in previous images, suggesting a blast threw up debris around the site. That suggests the use of specialised American bunker-buster bombs on the facility. Light grey smoke also hung in the air. Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. Join the Manchester Evening News WhatsApp group HERE It is not clear whether the US will continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a nine-day war with Iran. Mr Trump acted without congressional authorisation, and he warned there will be additional strikes if Tehran retaliates against US forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer said: "Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. "The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis."
