Trump’s Tehran Evacuation Call Sparks Outrage

Donald Trump’s call for the immediate evacuation of Tehran, a city of 10 million people, ignited widespread condemnation and fueled further instability amid escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. The post, made at 2:00 am local time, urged residents to flee, contributing to chaos as Iranians attempted to escape ongoing Israeli bombing campaigns. Reports surfaced of congested highways and depleted fuel supplies as citizens desperately sought to leave the capital.

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention swiftly denounced Trump’s message as a “terroristic” threat, criticizing it as unbecoming of a head of state. The institute further accused Trump of acting as a “lapdog” for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, drawing a parallel to the actions of former President Joe Biden.

Experts questioned the practicality of such an evacuation order. Assal Rad, a Middle East scholar at Arab Center Washington DC, highlighted the logistical impossibility of moving 10 million people, comparing the situation to evacuating an entire country like Sweden. She raised concerns about the destination for evacuees and the potential for returning to a devastated city.

The incident occurred as Trump participated in a G7 summit in Canada. Initially hesitant to sign a joint statement calling for a resolution to the Iranian crisis, Trump ultimately reversed course after revisions to the draft. Sources indicate the final statement removed language urging restraint from both Iran and Israel. Trump departed the summit shortly after issuing his call for the Tehran evacuation.

The National Iranian American Council expressed concern that Trump’s message might signal unauthorized U.S. involvement in the conflict or foreknowledge of further Israeli attacks.

The situation underscores the precariousness of the escalating tensions in the Middle East. While the facts of the conflict are complex, Trump’s impulsive call for a mass evacuation, particularly given the logistical realities and potential for exacerbating panic, appears reckless and counterproductive. Responsible leadership demands de-escalation through diplomacy, not inflammatory rhetoric and unrealistic demands. The removal of language calling for restraint from both sides in the G7 statement is particularly troubling, suggesting a prioritization of support for one party over a balanced approach to conflict resolution. The focus should be on securing a ceasefire and initiating meaningful negotiations, not issuing directives that could further endanger civilian populations.