Trump Tells Starmer ‘Do Not Give Away Diego Garcia’ As US May Need Island To Attack Iran

Update(1504ET): President Trump has come up with another key argument for why Britain must not “give away” the key Indian Ocean territory and military base in the Indian Ocean – Diego Garcia. He says it will be crucial for use in an potentially imminent attack on Iran.

“Should Iran decide not to make a deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous regime,” Trump wrote in a fresh Truth Social post.

He also dubiously stated that Iran could potentially retaliate on the UK and other “friendly countries” – making Diego Garcia highly strategic in a Western allied campaign against the Islamic Republic. 

“Prime Minister Starmer should not lose control, for any reason, of Diego Garcia, by entering a tenuous, at best, 100 Year Lease,” Trump wrote.

At this moment the Trump-assembled armada threatening Iran includes two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of jets, and advanced air defenses. Over 150 US military cargo flights have delivered weapons to the Middle East this month, with a surge of aircraft still headed to the region.

NEW – BREAKING

PRESIDENT TRUMP SLAMS CHAGOS DEAL AGAIN – STARMER IS “LOSING CONTROL” – “DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA”

Huge intervention on Truth Social

Chagos deal now dead pic.twitter.com/j718sQpIid

— Ross Kempsell (@RossKempsell) February 18, 2026

As for negotiations, an Iranian officials has The Wall Street Journal that efforts at dialogue could be doomed: “The gap between what Washington is willing to accept and what Tehran is willing to give is unbridgeable”

* * *

Axios’ Barak Ravid, a journalist very close to the Israeli government, writes Wednesday that the Trump White House is now “closer to a major war in the Middle East than most Americans realize. It could begin very soon.”

The sources he spoke to, which could be American or Israeli, say that such an operation would be a “massive” campaign at least weeks in sustained length. If it the campaign goes the way of Iraq or Afghanistan, or Syria, the conflict could eventually be measured in years and not just months.

Further, “The sources noted it would likely be a joint U.S.-Israeli campaign that’s much broader in scope — and more existential for the regime — than the Israeli-led 12-day war last June, which the U.S. eventually joined to take out Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.”

All of this looks to be going down with no public or Congressional debate whatsoever: “With the attention of Congress and the public otherwise occupied, there is little public debate about what could be the most consequential U.S. military intervention in the Middle East in at least a decade,” notes Axios.

Both sides are citing ‘progress’ in the two rounds of indirect negotiations (in Oman and then Geneva) which have taken place thus far, however, there’s been nothing yet in the way of specific agreement. Washington’s commitment to see talks through even for weeks at this point is highly in quesiton.

The following was the initial Iranian assessment of how the talks led by Witkoff and Kushner in Geneva went this week:

Iran has said it has reached an understanding with the US on the main “guiding principles” to resolve their dispute over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Speaking after indirect talks in Geneva, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi added that work still needed to be done. The US said “progress was made”.

Badr Albusaidi, foreign minister of mediator Oman, said the negotiations “concluded with good progress towards identifying common goals and relevant technical issues”.

The Iranians have asked for two weeks to hammer out a detailed proposal, with an American official stating, “Progress was made, but there are still a lot of details to discuss. The Iranians said they would come back in the next two weeks with detailed proposals to address some of the open gaps in our positions.”

Given President Trump has ordered a second US carrier group to the region, along with a huge number of support aircraft, does Iran really have two weeks to spare? 

Oil reaches HOD Wednesday soon on heels of Axios report, with WTI kissing $64/barrel…

To some degree, the Iranians are likely buying time, knowing that a surprise, unprovoked attack could be imminent. This would be similar to the June war, but unlike that scenario this would indeed be much bigger.

There’s reason to believe Trump may stay restrained, however, and give negotiations time. Fear of higher oil prices could ultimately be the deciding factor here, pushing Trump to settle with Iran and not spark another completely unpredictable, likely disastrous war in the Middle East. 

Public sentiment indicator…

⚡️#BREAKING Odds of a U.S strike on Iran by March 31st now up to 60%.

With all the news coming out, I wouldn’t be surprised… pic.twitter.com/QtpuSvtDix

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) February 18, 2026