Donald Trump: This is how the press comments on his blow against Iran

The United States attacked Iran in a precisely planned military action and hit three important nuclear facilities. The assessments of the German and international press are split.

“NZZ” (Switzerland): “Tehran and its militias in the region – such as in Iraq – could now also target American facilities and troops in the Middle East. In addition, terroristate on softer goals or hostage frames from Americans who are still in Iran. Also a blockade of shipping in the street of Hormus in Persian Golf is possible. Iran bring the global economy to the wreaths.

Trump obviously wants to have it moved against the nuclear facilities in these military blows. The American president is aware that in the end he still has to find a diplomatic solution with Iran. With the bombing of the nuclear systems, the United States probably only thrown the Iranian nuclear program back by only a few years. If the regime survives, it could now try to make an atomic bomb all the more determined. Iran may have already brought larger quantities of his enriched uranium to a secret place from the now bombed nuclear systems. “

“The Guardian” (Great Britain): “The US president was under considerable pressure from republican anti-interventionists who rejected measures against Iran. They feared that the United States would be drawn into a lengthy attempt to overthrow Iranian leadership, or that attacks on nuclear facilities have only limited success.

In the past few days, however, when Trump increasingly took the possibility of attacks and explained that he had no interest in a lengthy war to bring about a change of regime, some consultants changed their publicly presented arguments and suggested that the United States could carry out a quick bomb attack if Israel alone should not progress. However, the attacks are inevitably regarded as the victory of the hardliners in the United States, which had pushed for a robust attitude towards Iran, a decisive support for the Israeli attacks on the country and a direct military participation in the United States. ”

“The Times” (Great Britain): “Donald Trump had presented himself as an anti-war president and received support with the promise to distance himself from the” eternal wars “, shaped the previous US presidics, and to concentrate on his own country again. His decision to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran will put his alliance on the test. Republicans and members of the broader Maga movement on the best procedure last week.

“The mirror”: “Trump’s first own war unfolds as bizarre as one would expect from a US president who rules via social media. In the tone of a teenager. Everything is personally, everything is soaked up, soaked up by emotions and from addiction to attention. This is often amusing, this time it is existential and truthful. (…) ‘ It was some of the time to be in January.

“The world”: “There were good reasons for this attack, and there were hardly any reasonable alternatives. In German leaves and broadcasters, the question is still being discussed whether Iran was really about to build an atomic bomb. Anyone who has dealt with the matter for a while knew the answer long before the outbreak of this part of the war. without being able to stop them (…

“T-Online”: “Every new escalation in the Middle East, every further revolution of the spiral of violence, has to get the world deeply. Because there is no decided word of power from the outside, no more determined military strike caps the fuss about this eternal powder barrel. The US attack may make the situation in the Middle East more manageable and at least for Israel more secure. On the contrary.

“Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”: “None of the nuclear powers have an interest in their club greater and more dangerous. Trump and Netanyahu ensured that Iran cannot creep in the rear entrance in the near future, which, which could not prevent all negotiations, had already come very close. But they had to accept considerable risks for this success. How the double strike against Iran is now being assessed in the history books from, to which you have always rightly trusted the worst. “

“Young World”: “In any case, what Trump’s air raid in Iran has done on Sunday night is the affirmation of the fist right as the ultima ratio of international relationships. Anyone who imagines diplomacy as an alternative to the direct competition of the weapons is embarrassed. Using the US Air Force of Israel’s war against Iran.

“Stuttgarter Nachrichten”: “The cleric dictatorship in Iran is responsible. A ugly regime, violent inwards. The fact that fantasies are now shooting into the herb, with the nuclear armor of Iran, his leadership can be disposed of immediately. But that will remain fantasies. It will not be possible to change the air. It has been forgotten how things from 2003 have been in Iraq with similar signs.

“Nürnberger Zeitung”: “Trump hoped for a safe and clear triumph about the Islamic Republic. But that is a chimera: the Iranian nuclear program cannot be destroyed with a single use of US bombers. In addition, the Iranians claimed to be important nuclear material in the days before the attack. Trump must now fear that Iran or the Huthis in Yemen would kill American soldiers in Yemen; The United States has to attack again and get caught in the conflict even deeper. “

“Landshuter Zeitung/Straubinger Tagblatt”: “Netanyahu has been warning of Iran for decades-and is also an intimate connoisseur of American domestic politics. It is quite possible that he wanted to lure Trump into the position in which he is now: the US President is now the warlord of the Golf. And he ordered the attack that Netanyahu wanted from him.”

“Märkische Oderzeitung”: “A dangerous phase begins with the intervention of the USA into the Israel Iran War. It can now happen that the argument extends beyond the two states. However, two circumstances limit the options of Iran. The launch ramps for its rockets are strongly decimated by Israel’s attacks. Is.