President Donald Trump campaigned on ending “endless wars” and pledged to swiftly resolve conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine upon taking office. However, after five months, he has aligned with Israel in its military actions against Iran’s nuclear facilities. What led to this shift? Were there clear warning signs that Trump was willing to involve the United States in the long-standing Israel-Iran power struggle? The extent of the damage inflicted in Iran remains uncertain, with the White House reporting bombings on three uranium enrichment sites. The future course of action is uncertain – it could involve more U.S. strikes, Iranian retaliation, a return to diplomacy, or other developments. Could this signal the downfall of Iran’s ruling regime or be a significant historical event like the Soviet Union’s dissolution?
Undoubtedly, a key factor in the U.S.’s actions is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s complex relationships with recent American leaders. The recent bombing in Iran has been brewing for decades, dating back to Netanyahu’s early warnings in the 1990s about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu, a long-serving Israeli Prime Minister, has consistently advocated for military action against Iran, often using visual aids to emphasize his points. His efforts to derail the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which Trump ultimately withdrew from, underline his commitment to countering Iran’s nuclear program.
Netanyahu’s persistent calls for action have influenced successive U.S. administrations, including the Obama-era nuclear agreement. While relations between Netanyahu and American presidents have been strained at times, with Netanyahu clashing with leaders like Obama, Clinton, and Biden, he has generally maintained a cordial rapport with Trump. However, no U.S. president prior to Trump had fully endorsed Netanyahu’s aggressive stance towards Iran. The fear of being drawn into a broader conflict had deterred previous administrations from pursuing military action against Iran, marking a significant departure in Trump’s approach.
The legacy of the Middle East conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to loom large for U.S. presidents. Vice President JD Vance emphasized on ABC’s “This Week” program on June 22 that the president is particularly concerned about prolonged military engagements and seeks to avoid such entanglements. Vance clarified that the Trump administration is not pursuing regime change in Iran.
Despite previous portrayals of President Trump as risk-averse to military actions, his track record demonstrates a willingness to engage in targeted strikes. Notable examples include missile attacks in Syria, a raid to eliminate ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and the drone strike that took out Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. Concerns over Iran’s nuclear advancements post-Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal have been raised by the IAEA and former U.S. officials like Dan Shapiro, who stress the need to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapon capabilities.
Trump’s recent rhetoric has focused on preventing Iran from furthering its nuclear enrichment program, suggesting negotiation or forceful measures as options. Following Israel’s military strikes on Iranian targets, Trump lauded the operation and commended Prime Minister Netanyahu for their collaborative efforts. Notably, U.S. intelligence agencies have previously reported that Iran is not imminently close to developing a nuclear weapon.
As tensions escalate, the evolving dynamics in the region prompt a reassessment of Trump’s stance on avoiding military conflicts and the implications of recent developments with Iran.
