Speaking to reporters at the White House during a St. Patrick’s Day visit by Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, Trump said allied governments had expressed support for U.S. and Israeli actions but were unwilling to provide direct military assistance.

Trump noted that several allied countries had indicated they had no immediate plans to deploy naval forces to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass.

The comments followed calls by the U.S. administration for international support to maintain shipping access after Iran responded to joint U.S.-Israeli strikes with drones, missiles and naval mines that have effectively hindered tanker traffic.

Despite the criticism, Trump said he had “nothing currently in mind” when asked whether Washington would retaliate against allies for their stance.

“I think NATO is making a very foolish mistake,” Trump said. “Everyone agrees with us, but they don’t want to help.”

Earlier in the day, Trump struck a different tone on social media, stating that the United States no longer needed NATO assistance due to what he described as “Military Success” in the ongoing conflict, now in its third week.

In that statement, he also singled out non-NATO partners Japan, Australia and South Korea, without elaborating on their roles.

Trump has previously raised the possibility of withdrawing the United States from NATO, though he did not revisit that position in his latest remarks.

The standoff over the Strait of Hormuz has heightened concerns about global energy supplies, as disruptions in the narrow waterway can have immediate implications for oil markets and shipping routes.

The reluctance of NATO allies to engage militarily underscores divisions within the alliance over involvement in the conflict, even as diplomatic backing for U.S. actions appears to remain intact.

Takaichi will be the first major ally to hold face-to-face talks with Trump since he urged Japan and other partners to send naval vessels to escort tankers through the strategically vital waterway, which has been largely disrupted by Iran during the conflict.

“The biggest risk is that Trump publicly presses her for security commitments that she can’t deliver on,” said David Boling of the Asia Group consultancy in Tokyo, a former U.S. trade negotiator with Japan.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly a fifth of global energy supplies, with about 90% of Japan’s crude oil imports passing through it, underscoring Tokyo’s exposure to the crisis.

Japanese officials said Takaichi had initially planned to steer discussions toward concerns over China’s regional posture ahead of a delayed visit, but shifting U.S. priorities have forced a focus on Iran and maritime security.

Japan has received no formal request from Washington, Takaichi told parliament earlier this week, adding that the government was assessing possible responses within the constraints of its pacifist constitution.

Several U.S. allies, including Germany, Italy and Spain, have ruled out joining a Gulf mission. Kaja Kallas said on Tuesday that no country was prepared to risk personnel in the conflict zone.

Public sentiment in Japan also remains cautious. Fewer than 10% of respondents support U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, according to a poll by the Asahi newspaper.

Trump has alternated between criticising allies for their reluctance and downplaying their necessity, singling out countries like Japan that rely on U.S. security guarantees while depending heavily on Middle Eastern oil flows.

Tokyo has historically limited its role in Middle East operations to logistical and intelligence support. Analysts say deploying Japanese vessels into an active conflict zone would face significant legal and political hurdles.

“It has turned into a discussion that shakes the very foundations of the Japan–U.S. security alliance,” said Kazuhiro Maeshima, a politics professor at Sophia University in Tokyo.

Macron said the deployment of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle along with eight warships and two helicopter carriers is strictly “defensive” and designed to protect French nationals and regional partners without making France a direct party to the conflict.

The deployment comes after a French soldier was killed in a drone attack near Irbil in northern Iraq, where French forces are training Iraqi units as part of a multinational counterterrorism mission.

France has also strengthened its air presence in the United Arab Emirates, doubling the number of Rafale fighter jets at its base in Abu Dhabi to 12. French authorities said Rafale jets have intercepted drones targeting the UAE since the conflict began.

France maintains defense agreements with Gulf states including Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE, and also has forces deployed in Jordan and Iraq. Officials say the naval presence will help respond to emergencies and facilitate the evacuation of French nationals if needed. France has more than 400,000 citizens living in the Middle East, including large communities in Israel and the UAE.

Alongside the military buildup, Macron has intensified diplomatic outreach. He has spoken with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump, calling for a diplomatic solution to the conflict and urging de-escalation.

France is also attempting to mediate tensions in Lebanon, where clashes between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah have intensified. Paris, which maintains troops in the UN peacekeeping mission there, has sent humanitarian aid and continues to support the Lebanese military.

Two exit polls indicated that about 87% of voters supported the constitutional rewrite, while turnout reached 73%, according to earlier data from the electoral commission.

The new constitution restructures parliament and reinstates the post of vice president, which had been abolished in 1996. Under the revised framework, the president would gain the authority to appoint the vice president as well as several other senior officials.

The rapid drafting of the document has prompted debate among political analysts in Kazakhstan about its potential political implications.

Some observers suggest Tokayev may be preparing to appoint a successor as vice president and step down early, while others argue the constitutional change could reset his presidential term limits.

Both the existing and the proposed constitutions restrict presidents to a single seven-year term, a provision introduced by Tokayev in 2022.After casting his vote in the capital, Astana, Tokayev said the next presidential election would take place in 2029 when his current term expires.

“Some experts suggest that competition for power in Kazakhstan is intensifying,” Tokayev said. “However, there are absolutely no grounds for worry that this will have a negative impact on society.”

Opposition to the constitutional overhaul appeared limited, with state-approved pollsters showing broad support for the changes. Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan’s authorities have maintained tight control over political activity in the nation of about 20 million people.

In a rare public comment, former president Nursultan Nazarbayev, who ruled the country from 1991 to 2019, said he had voted in favour of the new constitution.

In a statement posted on his website, the 85-year-old said he had entrusted the presidency to Tokayev and continued to support that decision, expressing hope that the new constitution would benefit the country and its people.

Once Tokayev’s political patron, Nazarbayev was stripped of his remaining official roles after unrest in January 2022 in which hundreds were killed.

Tokayev has described the violence as a coup attempt involving elements of the security services loyal to the former leader, and several longtime Nazarbayev allies have since been imprisoned.

In an interview published Sunday by the Financial Times, Trump said the timing of the meeting could shift depending on progress in restoring navigation through the key oil transit route.

“We’d like to know before (the summit),” Trump said, adding that “we may delay,” without specifying how long a postponement might last.

The Strait of Hormuz, which connects Gulf energy producers to global markets, has come under heightened strain during the conflict with Iran, raising concerns about disruptions to international oil shipments.

Washington has sought diplomatic and security cooperation from major powers to ensure the passage remains open as tensions across the Middle East escalate.

Trump’s remarks suggest the United States is looking to China to play a role in stabilizing the situation. Beijing maintains significant economic ties with Iran and is a major importer of Gulf energy supplies that pass through the strait.

The proposed summit in Beijing had been expected to focus on trade and geopolitical issues between the two powers, but Trump indicated that progress on the maritime corridor could influence whether the meeting proceeds on schedule.

Kim Min-seok told reporters in the United States that Trump raised the possibility of meeting Kim Jong Un during a potential trip to China later this year or at another time, adding that the timing was uncertain but dialogue itself remained important.“Meeting (Kim Jong Un) would be good.

It’s really good to meet,” Kim quoted Trump as saying, noting the U.S. president suggested the encounter could occur during an upcoming visit to China or at a later stage.

Washington has for decades led international efforts to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons program through sanctions, diplomacy and negotiations, though these measures have produced limited results.

The Trump administration has recently pushed to revive high-level engagement with Pyongyang, with officials exploring the possibility of a summit with Kim Jong Un later this year.

Kim Min-seok said he and Trump agreed that a meeting occurring soon, potentially around the time of a visit to Beijing, would carry symbolic significance.“If it happens soon, or around the time of the China visit, that would in itself be meaningful,” Kim said.

He added that the U.S. president appeared firmly committed to maintaining some form of contact with North Korea regardless of when a summit might take place.

Trump has repeatedly indicated willingness to engage directly with Kim Jong Un. During a trip to Asia in October, he said he was “100 percent” open to meeting the North Korean leader, though Pyongyang did not immediately respond to the offer.

More recently, Kim Jong Un suggested the United States and North Korea could “get along” if Washington recognized Pyongyang’s nuclear status, a position that conflicts with long-standing U.S. policy aimed at denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.

At the same time, North Korea has signaled skepticism toward diplomatic initiatives from Seoul, describing South Korea’s latest peace efforts as a “clumsy, deceptive farce.”

North Korea continues to advance its military capabilities while maintaining close strategic ties with Russia, developments that have raised concerns among the United States and its allies in the region.

Pyongyang has also condemned the recent U.S.-Israeli military strike on Iran, describing it as an “illegal act of aggression,” reflecting broader geopolitical tensions involving Washington and its adversaries.

The possibility of renewed talks between Washington and Pyongyang comes as regional diplomacy remains fragile, with negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear program stalled despite years of international pressure and intermittent dialogue.

Writing in the Saudi-based outlet Arab News, Egyptian journalist and analyst Abdellatif El-Menawy said the conflict has exposed the limits of American power, the reach of Israeli military deterrence and Iran’s enduring role in the regional balance, while simultaneously revealing vulnerabilities in the Gulf’s security architecture.

The war, he argued, may prolong the Middle East’s crises rather than produce the stable “new Middle East” often invoked in policy debates.

The United States’ strategic thinking surrounding the conflict reflects an assumption seen during the Iraq war era that weakening a hostile regional power could pave the way for a more favorable political order.

.Under this logic, military pressure on Iran’s leadership and infrastructure was expected either to weaken Tehran to the point of strategic retreat or trigger domestic unrest that could alter the country’s political trajectory.

But Iran’s position in the region extends beyond the structure of its government, he argued. The country has established institutions, a complex social structure and networks of influence across several parts of the Arab world.

Because of those factors, analysts say the collapse or severe weakening of Iran could introduce additional instability rather than immediately stabilize the region.

The war has already expanded beyond limited strikes, with Iranian attacks targeting Israel, U.S. military installations and other strategic locations across the Gulf region, according to the analysis.

The conflict’s effects have also spread into global economic systems, particularly energy markets and maritime shipping routes.

Oil infrastructure across the Gulf has faced rising risks, with key pipelines, refineries and export terminals in countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq and Bahrain placed under heightened security pressure as hostilities intensify.

At the same time, the Strait of Hormuz one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints through which roughly one-fifth of global oil trade passes has come under renewed scrutiny amid the conflict.

Any disruption to shipping through the strait could quickly reverberate through oil prices, insurance markets and international trade flows, analysts note, underscoring the region’s continued strategic significance to the global economy.

The broader implication, is that the Middle East’s geopolitical stability cannot be separated from the vulnerabilities of the global energy system.

The conflict has also raised questions in the Gulf about the long-standing security model built around U.S. military protection.

For decades, American bases in the region were viewed primarily as deterrents against external threats. However, the current conflict has highlighted how those same installations can also become targets during periods of confrontation.

This concern has roots in earlier regional shocks, including the 2019 attack on Saudi oil facilities that temporarily disrupted global oil supply and raised doubts about the effectiveness of external security guarantees.Such developments have already encouraged Gulf states to diversify their diplomatic and strategic relationships.

A notable example came in March 2023, when Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to restore diplomatic relations in a deal brokered by China. The agreement was widely viewed as part of a broader effort by Gulf states to reduce regional tensions while balancing relations among major global powers.

Despite such diplomatic efforts, the current war has underscored the limits of de-escalation initiatives in a region shaped heavily by geography and military positioning.

As long as U.S. bases remain in the Gulf and Iran perceives those deployments as a strategic threat, regional states will remain exposed to confrontation regardless of their diplomatic preferences, analysts say.

Even if Iran emerges weakened from the conflict, the country is unlikely to disappear from the Middle East’s strategic landscape.

Instead, Tehran may rely more heavily on asymmetric strategies that aim to raise the costs of confrontation for its adversaries.

These strategies could include leveraging maritime chokepoints, economic pressure points and regional alliances to challenge what Tehran views as an American-led security structure.

Iran has historically used such methods as part of a broader deterrence approach that extends beyond conventional military confrontation.The evolving dynamics also raise questions about Israel’s role in the region.

Israel is widely viewed as having demonstrated strong intelligence and airpower capabilities through strikes deep inside Iranian territory. Yet military superiority does not necessarily translate into a stable regional order under Israeli leadership.

Accordingly a weakened Iran could in some ways heighten concerns among Arab states about the emergence of a more assertive Israel.The resulting regional balance may therefore resemble a complex triangular dynamic involving a militarily capable Israel, an injured but resilient Iran and Gulf states with substantial economic resources but growing security uncertainty.

Beyond the Middle East, the conflict also carries wider geopolitical implications.A prolonged confrontation with Iran could absorb American military and diplomatic attention, potentially creating opportunities for rival powers such as Russia and China to expand influence in other regions.

Some analysts have also warned that a shift in U.S. focus toward the Middle East could affect Washington’s ability to manage simultaneous international crises.For now, however, the conflict’s long-term consequences remain uncertain.

While the war has challenged assumptions about the durability of the existing regional order, analysts say it has not yet produced a clear alternative.Instead, the emerging picture is of a Middle East entering a period of greater fluidity, where established security arrangements face new tests and geopolitical alignments continue to evolve.

Mohammad Mohaddesin, head of foreign policy at the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said during a news conference in Paris that sustained airstrikes had weakened elements of Iran’s military and security apparatus but would not be sufficient to remove the ruling system.

“The 12-day war in June, and the current war, now in its 12th day, proved that bombings cannot overthrow the regime,” Mohaddesin said, adding that political change would require widespread public mobilization inside Iran.

Mohaddesin said that even a substantial deployment of foreign troops would be unlikely to achieve regime change without support from the Iranian population.

“You need a popular uprising,” he said, arguing that internal resistance combined with popular protest would be necessary to challenge the country’s leadership.

He added that he did not consider a deployment of U.S. ground troops a realistic scenario in the current conflict.

Nearly two weeks of fighting have killed around 2,000 people in Iran, including the country’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, according to figures cited in the conflict, while military strikes have damaged parts of Iran’s defence and security infrastructure.

Iran has responded with retaliatory actions that have widened tensions across the Middle East and disrupted global energy markets and transport routes. The country’s powerful security force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has tightened its control and warned it would suppress any unrest.

The NCRI, also known by its Farsi name Mujahideen-e-Khalq, was designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States until 2012 and remains banned in Iran. Analysts say its level of support inside the country is difficult to assess.

Along with monarchist groups supporting Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s former shah, it is among the few opposition movements outside the country capable of organizing political gatherings and advocacy efforts.

Mohaddesin acknowledged that his organisation alone could not bring down Iran’s political system but said large-scale protests similar to demonstrations earlier this year could re-emerge once airstrikes cease and eventually shift the balance of power.

Israeli officials have said weakening Iran’s security structures is among the objectives of the campaign, arguing it could enable Iranians to determine their own political future.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi made the remarks during a press conference on the sidelines of China’s annual parliamentary meeting in Beijing, warning that the absence of engagement between the world’s two largest economies could deepen tensions at a time of heightened geopolitical strain. “Failure to engage between the two nations would only lead to misunderstandings and misjudgements, escalating toward confrontation and harming the world,” Wang said. His comments came as both governments prepare for a potential meeting between Xi and Trump later this month, a summit expected to address trade, security and regional tensions amid an increasingly complex global environment.

Summit preparations intensify ,Analysts say the planned meeting between the two leaders carries heightened importance as relations between Beijing and Washington face renewed scrutiny.The United States has intensified actions affecting countries with close economic and political ties to China, including Iran and Venezuela, developments that have drawn attention to Beijing’s diplomatic posture and its willingness to defend partners facing pressure from Washington. Observers say the confrontation unfolding in the Middle East and Washington’s broader geopolitical strategy are testing China’s foreign policy approach, which traditionally emphasises economic partnerships and diplomatic engagement rather than direct military involvement.Pressure on China’s foreign policyChina’s international strategy has rarely faced this level of examination in recent decades, according to Yasser Nasser, a historian at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.“In some senses it is existential in that it reveals that Chinese economic commitments or commitments to arms deals, for example, do not translate to directly confronting the U.S. or preventing interventions as, for example, it did during the Vietnam War,” Nasser said.

The evolving global environment has placed China in a complex position as it seeks to maintain relations with partners targeted by U.S. policies while avoiding direct confrontation with Washington.Diplomacy framed as stabilising forceWang used the press conference to emphasise China’s preference for diplomacy and engagement in international affairs, contrasting that approach with what he characterised as reliance on force in resolving disputes.He said sustained communication between major powers was necessary to maintain stability in the international system and warned against policies that could push the global order toward confrontation.China has repeatedly urged dialogue to address geopolitical tensions, including conflicts linked to the Middle East crisis and broader strategic competition between major powers. The expected Xi-Trump meeting is being closely watched by governments and markets worldwide as a potential indicator of how the two powers intend to manage their rivalry and cooperation across trade, security and diplomatic arenas.

The dispute has exposed cracks within the Islamic Republic’s leadership following the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a week ago, a development that has removed a central authority who for decades suppressed factional rivalries within the system.Sources close to Iran’s leadership, speaking from inside the country on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, told Reuters that tensions among senior officials have intensified as the war escalates and key figures have been killed in U.S. and Israeli strikes.The conflict has placed unprecedented pressure on the country’s governing institutions, with military, political and clerical leaders struggling to coordinate responses while maintaining internal cohesion.Backlash over Pezeshkian remarks.The divisions became more visible after Pezeshkian said Iran would suspend attacks on neighbouring states unless strikes against Iran originated from their territory.The remarks were intended to reduce tensions with Gulf governments following Iranian attacks on facilities linked to U.S. forces in the region. However, they triggered a rapid backlash from hardline factions inside Iran who viewed the statement as a concession at a time of military confrontation.Officials close to the leadership said the controversy highlighted deeper disagreements within the ruling hierarchy over how to conduct the war and manage relations with regional states.While pragmatic figures have signalled an interest in reducing regional escalation, hardliners have argued for a more aggressive response to the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iranian targets.Revolutionary Guards expand influence

As the conflict intensifies, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are playing a growing role in shaping military and strategic decisions, according to people familiar with the leadership dynamics.The Guards, one of the most powerful institutions within the Islamic Republic, have moved to assert greater influence despite suffering heavy losses from targeted strikes that killed several senior commanders.The decapitation campaign against Iranian military leaders has added strain to the country’s command structure while reinforcing the Guards’ determination to maintain operational control.Sources said the combination of battlefield pressure and leadership losses has contributed to heightened tensions among the country’s remaining senior officials.Push to name new supreme leaderAmid the uncertainty, Iran’s clerical establishment is accelerating efforts to appoint a new supreme leader to replace Khamenei.According to sources familiar with the process, a decision on the succession could come as early as Sunday, although it remains unclear whether a new leader will command sufficient authority to contain factional disputes.

Mojtaba Khamenei, the late leader’s son, is widely seen as a leading candidate. He is believed to have backing from the Revolutionary Guards and influential figures within his father’s office.However, his potential elevation has faced resistance from moderates within the political establishment. Critics argue that he lacks the seniority of more experienced ayatollahs and remains largely untested in Iran’s complex political hierarchy.The debate over succession underscores the broader challenges confronting Iran’s leadership as it navigates a war that officials describe as an existential threat to the Islamic Republic.