“His Own Making”: Ex-CIA Chief Says Trump Trapped in War With No Exit.

A former CIA director says Trump walked straight into this crisis—and now can’t walk out. Here’s why.

As the war with Iran enters its fourth week, a blunt assessment from one of Washington’s most experienced national security figures has sharpened the political debate: the crisis, he argues, is largely self-inflicted.

Leon Panetta, a former CIA director and U.S. defense secretary, says President Donald Trump now faces a narrowing set of options after a conflict that began with confidence but has grown more complex—and more costly—by the day.

Speaking publicly, Panetta described a president caught “between a rock and a hard place,” struggling to reconcile military escalation with the absence of a clear endgame.

At the center of the crisis is the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world’s traded oil flows. Iran’s effective disruption of that route has jolted global energy markets and exposed what critics see as a fundamental miscalculation by the White House.

For decades, U.S. policymakers have treated the strait as a predictable flashpoint in any confrontation with Iran. Panetta, who served in multiple administrations, said the risk was well understood. The failure, he suggested, was not in anticipating Iran’s capabilities—but in underestimating its willingness to use them.

The war itself began with what appeared to be a decisive opening. A surprise Israeli strike killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and U.S.-backed operations quickly established air superiority.

But early momentum has proven difficult to sustain. Iran’s leadership transition to a younger, more hardline successor has hardened the regime rather than weakened it, while retaliatory measures—particularly in the Gulf—have shifted leverage back toward Tehran.

At home, the political pressure on Trump is building. Rising oil prices, falling approval ratings, and divisions within his political base have complicated efforts to frame the conflict as a success. The president has sent mixed signals on objectives and timelines, at times suggesting a quick resolution while simultaneously preparing for a longer confrontation.

Panetta’s critique goes beyond strategy to leadership style. He argues that dismissing alliances and sidelining partners has left Washington with limited diplomatic support at a critical moment.

Appeals for international help in securing maritime routes have drawn only cautious responses, reflecting strained relations with traditional allies.

That leaves Trump facing a stark choice. One option is escalation—using military force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, neutralize Iranian coastal defenses, and escort commercial shipping. The other is to step back and declare success without securing a ceasefire, a move that risks being widely seen as a strategic retreat.

Neither path is without consequence. Expanding the conflict could deepen regional instability and increase casualties. Walking away, however, could undermine U.S. credibility and leave the underlying crisis unresolved.

Panetta’s conclusion is unsparing: the president is now confronting the consequences of decisions made at the outset of the war. Without a negotiated ceasefire or a decisive shift on the battlefield, he argues, there is no clear exit.

The next phase of the conflict may hinge less on battlefield gains than on whether Washington can convert pressure into diplomacy. For now, the war continues—and so does the uncertainty surrounding how, or whether, it will end.

This isn’t just a war with Iran. It may be the moment NATO starts to break from within.

The war unfolding around Iran is no longer just a Middle Eastern conflict. It has become a defining stress test for NATO—and for the broader idea of Western unity in an increasingly unstable world.

At the heart of the tension is a growing divide between Washington and its European allies. For decades, the transatlantic alliance rested on a simple understanding: the United States would lead, and Europe would align, even amid disagreements.

That assumption is now under visible strain. Major European powers—including Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain—have declined direct involvement in the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, signaling a shift that goes beyond tactical hesitation.

Their message is clear: this is not their war.

What makes this moment different is not just disagreement over strategy, but a deeper unease about how decisions are being made.

European officials have indicated that they were neither fully consulted nor presented with a coherent endgame. In alliance politics, that matters. When a leading power initiates a high-risk conflict and then seeks support after the fact, the structure begins to resemble hierarchy rather than partnership.

That perception carries consequences. If allies believe they are being asked to absorb risks without influence, they are more likely to distance themselves—not out of defiance, but self-preservation.

The economic dimension reinforces that caution. The Strait of Hormuz, now under heightened tension, is a critical artery for global energy flows. Any sustained disruption reverberates far beyond the Gulf. Even countries less directly dependent on Middle Eastern oil remain exposed through global pricing, shipping costs, and supply chains.

Europe, still recovering from previous energy shocks, faces renewed vulnerability. Higher oil and gas prices ripple through industrial production, transportation, and agriculture. Fertilizer costs rise, food systems tighten, and manufacturing competitiveness erodes.

These pressures arrive at a moment when European governments are already trying to expand defense production and sustain support for Ukraine—objectives that rely heavily on stable energy inputs.

In that sense, the Iran conflict intersects directly with Europe’s own strategic priorities. A prolonged energy shock does not just strain economies; it can weaken the very industrial base required for military readiness.

Türkiye, positioned at the crossroads of energy transit and regional trade, faces its own exposure. Heavy reliance on imported gas and its role as a processing and export hub mean that disruptions in the Gulf can quickly translate into domestic and regional economic stress.

Against this backdrop, the political language from Europe has shifted. What once might have been quiet diplomatic friction is now more openly expressed as distance and caution.

European leaders have described the escalation as destabilizing and, in some cases, legally questionable. They have explored maritime security roles, but on terms distinct from Washington’s broader military objectives.

The result is an alliance under pressure—not collapsing, but no longer moving in lockstep.

President Donald Trump’s rhetoric has further complicated the picture. His criticism of NATO partners and suggestions that the United States can act alone have reinforced doubts about long-term cohesion. Alliances depend not only on shared interests but also on trust. When that trust erodes, even powerful structures begin to loosen.

What is emerging is a more fragmented strategic landscape. The United States retains unmatched military power, but its ability to organize collective action appears less certain. European states, in turn, are beginning to hedge—seeking flexibility rather than automatic alignment.

This does not mean NATO is about to disappear. But it does suggest a transition. The alliance is being forced to adapt to a world in which unity can no longer be assumed, and where major decisions carry global consequences that allies are less willing to bear without a voice.

The war with Iran, in that sense, is not only about military outcomes or regional balance. It is about whether the Atlantic alliance can still function as a coherent political project—or whether it is entering a period of gradual, uneasy redefinition.

And if the latter proves true, the implications will extend far beyond this conflict, reshaping the architecture of global power in the years ahead.

Saudi Arabia Expels Tehran Envoys After Missile Strikes Target Gulf States Hosting U.S. Forces.

From missiles to expulsions — diplomacy in the Gulf is unraveling fast.

Saudi Arabia has expelled several Iranian diplomats, sharply escalating diplomatic tensions after Tehran launched missile and drone strikes against Gulf states hosting U.S. military bases.

In a statement on Saturday, the Saudi Foreign Ministry condemned what it described as Iran’s “blatant and repeated attacks” on Saudi territory and neighboring Gulf countries. Riyadh formally notified Iran’s military attaché, assistant military attaché and three other embassy staff members to leave the kingdom within 24 hours.

The ministry said the move was necessary to safeguard Saudi sovereignty and security, invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter, which affirms the right of self-defense. It warned that Iran’s actions could carry “serious consequences” for bilateral relations.

The expulsions follow a similar step by Qatar, which ordered Iranian military and security attachés to depart after a strike damaged facilities at Ras Laffan Industrial City — a key global liquefied natural gas hub.

Iran has framed its strikes as retaliation for U.S.-Israeli attacks that began on February 28, including Israeli bombardment of Iran’s South Pars gas field. Tehran has also targeted Prince Sultan Air Base in Al Kharj, which hosts American troops.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran was acting in self-defense and targeting U.S. military assets in the region. Iranian officials have warned that Gulf states allowing their territory to be used for U.S. operations could face continued retaliation.

At the same time, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian publicly apologized for missile strikes that hit civilian infrastructure in Gulf countries, signaling an attempt to limit diplomatic fallout even as military exchanges continue.

The diplomatic rupture highlights the widening scope of the conflict. What began as direct confrontation between Iran and Israel has drawn Gulf capitals into the crossfire, placing regional security arrangements under acute strain.

With embassies thinning and air defenses on high alert, the Gulf’s fragile balance now faces its most serious test in years.

Dozens Injured After Direct Hit in Negev City Near Sensitive Nuclear Facility.

A missile, a flash in the desert sky — and impact near Israel’s most secretive site.

An Iranian missile struck the southern Israeli town of Dimona on Saturday, injuring at least 39 people and hitting a residential building in the city that hosts Israel’s most sensitive nuclear facility.

The Israeli military confirmed a “direct missile hit on a building” in Dimona, located in the Negev desert. Emergency responders from Magen David Adom said victims were treated at multiple impact sites, including a 10-year-old boy in serious condition who remained conscious.

Video released by first responders showed flames engulfing part of a residential structure, while police images depicted a gaping hole torn through an exterior wall. Paramedic Karmel Cohen described “extensive damage and chaos” at the scene.

Dimona is home to a nuclear complex just outside the main town, widely believed to be the core of Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. The Israeli government has long maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities, describing the facility as a research center.

The strike comes amid escalating hostilities between Iran and Israel following a US-Israeli bombing campaign targeting Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including the Natanz facility in central Iran. Iranian authorities have confirmed damage to sites associated with uranium enrichment.

Saturday’s attack marks one of the most sensitive direct hits on Israeli territory since the conflict intensified, given Dimona’s symbolic and strategic importance. While there were no immediate reports of damage to the nuclear facility itself, the proximity of the strike is likely to deepen regional tensions.

Israel’s air defenses have intercepted numerous missiles in recent weeks, but the Dimona strike underscores the limits of even advanced defensive systems under sustained fire.

As both sides trade blows against infrastructure linked to their nuclear programs, the risk of further escalation — and miscalculation — continues to grow.

EU Urges Early Storage Action After Iran Strike on Qatar LNG Hub Sends Markets Surging.

The European Union is urging member states to begin filling gas storage sites early for next winter, warning that escalating conflict in the Gulf risks tightening global supply and pushing prices higher.

Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen wrote to EU governments on Saturday, calling on them to act “as early as possible” to avoid a late-summer rush that could further inflate costs.

He also proposed lowering the bloc’s mandatory gas storage target from 90 percent to 80 percent of capacity, with flexibility for further deviations under difficult market conditions.

The move follows Iran’s missile attack on Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City — one of the world’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) hubs — in retaliation for Israeli strikes on Iran’s South Pars gasfield. State-owned QatarEnergy said the assault knocked out roughly 17 percent of the country’s export capacity and could disrupt output for up to five years.

Although Asia absorbs around 80 percent of Qatar’s LNG exports — including major buyers such as China, Japan and India — Europe is unlikely to remain insulated. The war has complicated tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key transit route for global energy shipments, intensifying competition for available cargoes.

Since the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran on February 28, EU natural gas prices have jumped more than 30 percent. The spike accelerated after the reciprocal attacks on South Pars and Ras Laffan, amplifying fears of prolonged supply disruption.

Jorgensen sought to reassure member states that Europe’s supply position remains “relatively protected” for now, thanks in part to increased LNG imports from the United States after the bloc cut dependence on Russian energy following the invasion of Ukraine.

But he cautioned that as a net energy importer, the EU remains vulnerable to global price volatility.

The bloc’s storage mandate — requiring countries to maintain high reserve levels to safeguard winter heating and electricity demand — has become a central pillar of post-Ukraine energy security.

Officials now fear that surging global prices could complicate refilling efforts and expose the region to renewed market shocks.

Oil markets are also reflecting the strain, with prices climbing more than 50 percent since the conflict began.

For Europe, the lesson is clear: even limited physical disruption in the Gulf can ripple quickly through global energy systems. The strategy now is simple — fill early, spread purchases over time and avoid being caught short if tensions deepen.

Middle East Conflict Forces OPEC+ and Asian Importers to Rethink Energy Security as Hormuz Risk Surges.

The world isn’t running out of oil. It’s running out of certainty.

The Middle East crisis has done more than rattle oil markets. It is quietly rewriting the doctrine of global energy security.

Missile and drone strikes across Gulf energy hubs have pushed the Strait of Hormuz — the transit point for roughly 21% of global petroleum liquids — from theoretical risk to active fault line.

Tankers are hesitating. Insurance premiums are climbing. Shipping queues are growing. The chokepoint is no longer background anxiety; it is the story.

Brent crude briefly surged above $119 a barrel before easing, while Middle East physical benchmarks spiked far higher, signaling a tightening that futures markets alone cannot explain.

The shock is less about destroyed production than about disrupted movement. Ports, airspace, insurance markets and tanker logistics have all become embedded in a conflict zone.

On paper, the world still has oil. Forecasts project mid-decade supply surpluses, with rising output from the United States, Brazil and Canada. But paper balances do not move cargo.

Around one-fifth of global oil and LNG still flows through Hormuz. Even partial disruption strands millions of barrels per day, overwhelming alternative pipeline routes from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

This gap between spreadsheet surplus and deliverable supply has introduced a durable war premium. Freight costs are rising. Replacement barrels are more expensive. European diesel and jet fuel benchmarks have jumped. Markets are recalibrating around access risk, not just production capacity.

That shift is also transforming OPEC+. The group is no longer acting merely as a price manager. With most spare capacity concentrated in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, it now plays a quasi-stabilizing role in a corridor-constrained market.

Recent modest output adjustments were less about adding barrels and more about signaling control.

Yet spare capacity cannot escort tankers or neutralize naval threats. Maritime security has become as critical as upstream investment. European powers have hesitated to engage militarily, even as Washington offers escorts.

Asian importers, heavily exposed to Gulf crude, are quietly reassessing diversification strategies, insurance frameworks and emergency reserves.

The crisis underscores a structural reality: energy security is no longer defined only by how much oil exists underground. It hinges on whether it can travel safely through increasingly militarized sea lanes.

The emerging doctrine is stark. Control over shipping corridors, insurance credibility and geopolitical deterrence now matters as much as control over oil fields themselves. In this new order, the scarcest commodity is not crude — it is assured access.