Trump-driven turmoil in the Middle East and Europe is not someone else’s problem

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lee Ha-kyung

The author is a senior columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo. 

The U.S. president is facing growing distrust. When U.S. President Donald Trump first ran for the presidency in 2016, he repeatedly promised that there would be “no new wars.” He criticized America’s history of attempts at regime change in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, arguing that such interventions had failed. Trump also denounced the Republican Party’s mainstream neoconservatives as “warmongers.” Supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, built around the slogan “America First,” welcomed that message.

Today Trump appears to be a very different leader. Since beginning his second term in 2025, he has approved military actions involving seven countries. The conflict has even reached Iran, a nation of roughly 90 million people and the leading center of Shiite Islam. Airstrikes carried out together with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the reported death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have pushed the Middle East and Europe into a conflict many never wanted.

Trump has also requested a massive increase in U.S. defense spending. He has proposed raising the 2027 defense budget to $1.5 trillion, a 50 percent increase that would mark the largest military budget in American history. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office in 1961, he warned that the influence of the military-industrial complex could threaten democracy. Trump’s reversal of earlier antiwar rhetoric now echoes that warning from a former four-star general who later became president.

The moral foundation of Pax Americana has been shaken by Trump’s actions. Former President George W. Bush, whom Trump once criticized, sought congressional authorization before launching the Afghanistan War in 2001 and the Iraq War in 2003. Trump, by contrast, initiated the present conflict despite opposition from a majority of Americans and without securing approval from Congress.

Critics say the war began after Trump repeatedly signaled that meaningful negotiations were possible, only to launch military action while talks were underway. Traditional allies including Britain, France, Spain and Canada have expressed concern, some describing the move as a violation of international law.

Wars often have clear starting points but uncertain endings. If a risky strategy pursued without transparency drags on, both the United States and the global community could face severe consequences. The United States spent about $2.2 trillion over two decades in the Afghanistan War. More than 2,400 American troops died along with roughly 170,000 Afghan soldiers, police officers, civilians and Taliban fighters. The democratic government the war sought to build collapsed and the Taliban returned to power.

The outcome of the Iraq War, which lasted eight years and nine months, also remains controversial. Iran presents an even more complex challenge. If reserve forces are included, Iran could mobilize as many as 1.2 million troops and much of the country is mountainous terrain. Even a leader as confident as Trump could find it difficult to escape such a conflict once it expands.

The United States is currently spending about $900 million a day on the war. If a similar conflict were to continue for 20 years, the cost could reach $6.5 trillion. That would strain an American budget already carrying a deficit of roughly $1.8 trillion and could also damage the global economy.

Such a prolonged war might also weaken America’s ability to counter China’s expansion in the Taiwan Strait and the broader Indo-Pacific region. Energy disruptions have already had global effects. Sanctions on Russian oil imports have loosened under pressure from energy shortages, pushing prices higher and benefiting Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The cohesion of NATO and the broader Atlantic alliance has begun to show signs of strain. If Iranian refugees begin arriving in Europe, political tensions there could intensify further. It is unclear whether these are the outcomes Trump envisioned. Some voices within the MAGA movement itself have expressed frustration. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson criticized the war in unusually harsh terms.

Trump also faces political pressure at home. With midterm elections approaching in November, he has pledged to end the conflict within four to six weeks. Whether that promise can be kept remains uncertain.

The war’s implications also extend to the Korean Peninsula. In 2003, shortly after the Iraq War began, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il reportedly hid in an underground bunker near Mount Paektu, fearing a possible U.S. strike. Kim Jong-un has taken a different approach. Shortly after the latest airstrikes on Iran, he appeared publicly at the Sangwon Cement Complex in Sangwon County, North Hwanghae Province.

The visit appeared intended to signal confidence. North Korea now possesses nuclear weapons and has strengthened its strategic position through closer cooperation with Russia. Trump, who is preparing for a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping early next month, has publicly suggested meeting Kim Jong-un without preconditions.

Kim may still be studying Trump’s unpredictable behavior. The United States destroyed Iranian nuclear facilities again this year after similar strikes the previous June. The attacks demonstrate Trump’s determination to eliminate nuclear threats. If North Korea fails to respond constructively, Trump could once again resort to sudden and unconventional measures.

During Trump’s first term, the CIA’s Korea Mission Center reportedly considered covert operations aimed at regime change in Pyongyang. Earlier this year Trump declared, “I don’t need international law,” after the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Soon afterward, U.S. strikes in Iran reportedly killed Khamenei. Trump has since repeated a new message: “Next is Cuba.”

The danger is that war and decapitation strategies may become normalized. Flames from the Middle East could easily reach the Korean Peninsula. If Patriot missile batteries or other U.S. forces stationed in Korea are redeployed to the Iran conflict, deterrence against North Korea could weaken. That raises concerns about possible miscalculations by Kim Jong-un.

The economic impact is also serious. Korea depends heavily on imported oil and international trade, making it vulnerable to rising energy prices. At a time when international tensions are rising, domestic divisions risk weakening the country further. The lesson from abroad is clear. When confronted with external threats, political leaders must set aside internal conflicts and focus on protecting national stability.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.