New Delhi: The US president, Donald Trump, has drawn criticism after telling supporters that Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego during a speech defending the economic costs of the war. The White House subsequently said he was describing a danger his administration sought to prevent, rather than suggesting that attacks on American cities were acceptable.
Speaking at a campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, on Monday, Trump argued that higher prices were a temporary consequence of a conflict necessary to protect the United States. His remarks then shifted from the financial burden of the war to the possibility of Iranian attacks, prompting cheers and laughter from sections of the audience.
“They could take out a city. Let ’em take out Los Angeles. Let ’em take out San Diego,” Trump said, according to video and a transcript of the remarks. He subsequently described the price as small and predicted that the war would end soon, without providing a timetable in that passage.
The wording triggered a dispute over whether Trump was referring to the economic sacrifices associated with preventing a future attack or treating the destruction of American cities as an acceptable wartime loss. His critics condemned the latter implication, while the administration rejected that reading of his speech.
On Tuesday, the White House communications director, Steven Cheung, said Trump meant that a nuclear-armed Iran would have threatened US cities if Washington had failed to act. In its response to the controversy, the administration maintained that the president’s objective was to prevent Tehran from acquiring that capability.
The governor of California, Gavin Newsom, described Trump as “deranged and dangerous”, linking the comments to the administration’s earlier deployment of federal military personnel in Los Angeles. That deployment, opposed by local leaders, had already become a source of confrontation between California and Washington.
The mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, said the remarks could endanger her city and argued that protecting Americans was a president’s responsibility. Her San Diego counterpart, Todd Gloria, also rejected any suggestion that residents could be regarded as expendable, according to local coverage of their responses.
Criticism also came from the Republican congressional candidate, Jim Desmond, who said confronting Iran must remain consistent with protecting Americans at home. Desmond, a navy veteran contesting a San Diego-area seat, said no city or family should be sacrificed as collateral damage.
The reference to San Diego carries particular military significance because the city is a major centre of US naval operations in the Pacific. Naval Base San Diego, the largest naval installation on the US west coast, supports more than 60 combatant and auxiliary surface ships and over 250 shore commands, according to the US Navy.
The controversy comes as the Iran war’s effect on fuel and other costs becomes an issue in the November midterm elections. California began early voting on Monday, placing the remarks directly into an active campaign in a state where Trump’s relations with Democratic leaders remain confrontational.
The immediate dispute concerns the president’s language and its implications, rather than an announced change in American defence policy. The White House says the war is intended to prevent attacks on US cities; California leaders and Desmond argue that Trump’s remarks were incompatible with the obligation to protect their residents.