The White House is pushing back forcefully against claims that President Trump suggested Iran should attack Los Angeles or San Diego, saying his controversial remarks at a Nebraska campaign rally were being stripped of their broader context and that Trump was actually arguing that the war had prevented a nuclear-armed Iran from gaining the ability to destroy an American city.

The controversy erupted after Trump addressed supporters Monday in Grand Island, Nebraska, while defending the ongoing war with Iran and acknowledging the economic pain Americans have experienced, particularly from higher fuel prices. The president argued that those costs were comparatively minor if the conflict prevents Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and threatening the United States.

“We want to see a tremendous victory. You want to see a tremendous victory because it verifies all the things we did. And again, remember, with the war, it’s just artificial. It’s a little bit high. It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe.”

Trump then delivered the comments that quickly ignited a political firestorm.

“They can take out a city. Let them take — let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay, and it’s going to be over with very soon. It’s essentially almost over with, and they might keep going a little long,” he continued.

“You know, they always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it. Let me tell you, they need it. But it’s going to end very soon, and it’ll end one way or the other,” Trump added.

The wording immediately drew condemnation from California officials, who interpreted the remarks literally as Trump saying the destruction of Los Angeles or San Diego would constitute an acceptable price for the war.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of effectively inviting an enemy nation to attack two major American cities.

“After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego,” Newsom claimed. “He is deranged and dangerous.”

Newsom subsequently announced that he was “directing the State Threat Assessment Center to actively monitor the situation in the event that foreign actors interpret the President’s remarks as an invitation to target California,” while suggesting that Trump’s comments could potentially be “treasonous.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass similarly condemned the president, arguing that his language could have real-world security consequences.

“The President of the United States suggested that a foreign government attack Los Angeles. His statements against our city are dangerous and could potentially compromise our safety.”

“The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives,” she added. “In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city.”

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria also joined the criticism, declaring that his city could never be treated as expendable in a military conflict.

“San Diego is not collateral damage,” Gloria said. “We are not expendable. And we are never a ‘small price to pay.’ Keep our city out of your reckless war talk.”

The White House, however, says that interpretation badly misrepresents Trump’s point. Administration officials said the president was discussing the potential consequences of allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and was arguing that the temporary economic costs associated with preventing that outcome are a small price compared with the destruction that a nuclear Iran could eventually inflict.

The White House’s Rapid Response account issued an unusually blunt response after a Los Angeles Times headline characterized Trump as suggesting that Iran be allowed to attack the California cities.

“No, he didn’t, you buffoons,” Rapid Response said.

“He was saying the U.S. is fighting to STOP Iran from having the ability to take out LA and San Diego with a nuclear weapon — which they would if they had the chance,” it continued.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung offered the same explanation, saying the uproar surrounding the remarks is “not rooted in reality”.

“He was clearly stating US cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped,” Cheung said. “America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money”.

A review of Trump’s broader comments during the Nebraska appearance shows that the remarks came during an extended discussion of the economic consequences of the Iran war, particularly gasoline prices, and his contention that Americans were paying a relatively modest price to eliminate a far greater potential threat.

Trump had made that argument more explicitly earlier, telling a Nebraska news outlet that the higher cost of fuel would subside once the conflict ended and directly linking the economic sacrifice to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“We’re going to get [the cost of fuel] down,” Trump said. “But it’s all going to come pouring down as soon as the war’s over, which will be very soon. And we will not have Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that’s going to be — and I say it and I say it proudly — a relatively small price to pay for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of a lunatic nation.”

Trump has repeatedly argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions ultimately posed a threat beyond Israel and the Middle East. In his February State of the Union address, shortly before the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran began, Trump warned that Tehran was “working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.”

Iran, however, is not currently known to possess a nuclear weapon or an operational ballistic missile capable of striking the continental United States directly from Iranian territory. Its longest-range operational ballistic missiles fall far short of the distance required to reach California, although U.S. officials have long warned that technologies developed through Iran’s space-launch program could contribute to a future intercontinental ballistic missile capability.

That distinction has become part of the broader argument over Trump’s remarks. Critics contend that regardless of his intended point, a president should not use language that can be heard as suggesting an enemy could be permitted to destroy American cities. The White House counters that Trump’s meaning becomes apparent when the comments are viewed alongside his repeated warnings about what Iran could eventually do if permitted to acquire nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems.

{Matzav.com}