Trump defends Iran war as fuel costs rise and jokes about California cities
Developed over time first seen 17 hours ago
Trump said diesel prices rose to around $6.50 a gallon last month and described higher fuel costs as a small price to pay for keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. At a rally in Nebraska, he also joked that Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego, prompting California’s governor and both city mayors to condemn his remarks.
Trump said he had signed an executive order to expand access to tax-exempt diesel as fuel costs put pressure on businesses and consumers ahead of the 3 November midterm elections. The plan could temporarily ease restrictions on red-dyed diesel, normally used off-road and exempt from federal highway taxes, for road transport. The article links the price surge to overseas conflict and attacks on refineries in Russia and the Middle East.
- Trump says diesel has reached about $6.50 a gallon.
- His comments about Los Angeles and San Diego drew condemnation.
- An executive order could expand access to tax-exempt diesel.
New here? Start with this
The United States is currently engaged in military conflict with Iran, with the core dispute concerning Iran's development of nuclear weapons. American government officials contend that an Iranian nuclear capability would threaten regional security and destabilise international relations. This conflict has been significant in American foreign policy and remains controversial.
Fuel prices across America have risen substantially, with diesel fuel reaching approximately $6.50 per gallon in recent months. The military conflict with Iran and disruptions to global oil refineries are factors contributing to these price increases. Rising fuel costs directly impact American households and businesses, making energy prices a significant concern for voters.
The midterm elections are taking place in early November, during a period when fuel prices remain elevated and the Iran conflict continues. Politicians are proposing and implementing various measures to address rising fuel costs in this context. How the government manages both foreign policy and domestic economic challenges could influence how voters cast their ballots.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Proponents of Trump's position argue that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a paramount national security priority that justifies the current economic costs. From this perspective, preventing nuclear proliferation is essential to maintaining regional stability and protecting American interests, with temporary fuel price increases representing an acceptable trade-off against the far greater long-term threats posed by an Iranian nuclear arsenal.
The case against
Critics contend that military engagement has not prevented Iranian nuclear development and may instead entrench Iranian commitment to acquiring weapons, whilst imposing genuine economic costs on American households and businesses. They argue that the uncertain security benefits do not justify the present fuel price increases, and that short-term relief measures appearing timed to elections suggest political calculation rather than principled policy.
Full account
President Donald Trump has provoked sharp criticism from California's Democratic establishment following remarks made at a campaign rally in Nebraska. Speaking in Grand Island while supporting Republican Senator Pete Ricketts' election campaign, Trump defended military operations against Iran and addressed concerns over elevated domestic fuel prices.
Trump argued that increased petrol costs represented an acceptable price for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He then suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran could threaten American cities before explicitly stating Iran could "take out Los Angeles" and "take out San Diego," prompting applause from sections of the attending crowd. Alongside these comments, Trump unveiled an executive order intended to reduce diesel prices, which have risen to approximately $6.50 per gallon—a development creating pressure on consumers and businesses as midterm elections approach.
Democratic politicians across California responded with considerable anger. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass characterised the comments as constituting threats and asserted that presidential responsibility entailed protecting the nation rather than encouraging attacks by foreign powers. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria stated plainly that his city should not be considered expendable or treated as collateral damage in military affairs. Governor Gavin Newsom delivered the most emphatic criticism, describing the remarks as both "deranged and dangerous" and denouncing Trump for irresponsible military rhetoric.
The Trump administration countered through official statements. White House Communications Director Stephen Cheung asserted that the President had merely been illustrating how American cities would face genuine threats from a nuclear-armed Iran, absent military action. Administration officials underscored that both Los Angeles and San Diego house significant military infrastructure—including naval facilities and Air Force installations—rendering them potential targets of a hostile nuclear power. Officials disputed what they characterised as misrepresentation in press coverage of the President's comments.
Where outlets differ
Source 1 emphasises the campaign rally context and Ricketts' election race more prominently
Source 2 offers fuller reporting of the White House defensive response and official rebuttal strategy
Source 2 supplies specific military facility details (Naval Base San Diego, Camp Pendleton statistics); Source 1 lacks these specifics
Source 1 devotes greater attention to fuel price implications and election timing
Source 2 notes Trump himself has not personally responded to California officials' criticism
Source 1 presents longer direct quotes from Bass and Gloria; Source 2 emphasises Newsom's "disgusting and disqualifying" characterisation
Source 2 includes White House rapid response team's hostile labelling of LA Times journalists as "buffoons"
More coverage
- The Hill — Live updates: California officials fume as Trump says Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles, San Diego
- BBC World — White House defends Trump comment to let Iran 'take out' LA and San Diego
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Trump ponders whether Iran should ‘take out Los Angeles’ while defending higher gas prices and war with Iran”.