President Trump's statements regarding the Israel-Iran conflict have fluctuated between strong backing for Israel's military actions and a notable distancing from them.
This inconsistency has contributed to an atmosphere of unpredictability as the conflict intensifies, compounded by his sudden exit from the G7 summit in Canada, where he remarked he had "big stuff" awaiting in Washington.
The White House commented that his departure was related to the developments in the Middle East, while he later stated on Truth Social that it had "nothing to do with a Cease Fire."
Previously, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mentioned that the strikes were "fully coordinated" with the United States.
So, what elements are influencing Trump and, importantly, what options does he have moving forward?
1. Yielding to Netanyahu's demands and intensifying actions
As Israeli missiles struck Tehran on Thursday, Trump warned Iran's leaders of potentially "even more brutal" assaults from his Israeli ally, equipped with American munitions.
We understand Trump's overarching goal. He claims, much like Netanyahu, that Iran must not possess a nuclear weapon. Importantly, he has expressed that his favored approach (unlike Netanyahu) involves reaching an agreement between the US and Iran (this method also aligns with his self-portrayed identity as a premier dealmaker).
However, he has wavered on the means to achieve this, at times resorting to threats of military action, and at other times advocating for diplomacy. Just last week, he remarked that an Israeli strike on Iran could either facilitate a deal or completely derail it.
His inconsistency is occasionally framed by his supporters retrospectively as a tactical move - the so-called "madman" strategy in international relations. This concept has been historically associated with Trump's negotiation style and implies that intentional unpredictability or uncertainty about escalation can compel adversaries (or even allies, in Trump's case) to comply. It was notably linked to some foreign policy tactics during the Cold War by President Richard Nixon.
Some of Trump's advisors and backers endorse the "maximum pressure" aspect of the madman theory concerning his policy towards Iran. They believe that such threats will ultimately succeed because, in their view, Iran is disinterested in genuine negotiations (despite having signed a nuclear agreement in 2015, facilitated by Obama, from which Trump later withdrew).
Netanyahu has consistently urged Trump to take a military approach rather than a diplomatic one, and the US president, despite his repeatedly expressed ambition of earning the Nobel Peace Prize, may ultimately feel compelled to act on his more aggressive threats against Iran's leadership.
Israel may also intensify its behind-the-scenes efforts to secure American involvement, as it perceives, to complete the task. The US possesses bunker buster bombs that Israel believes can eliminate Iran's underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordow.
As the conflict intensifies, so does the pressure on Trump from the more hawkish faction of Republicans in Congress who have long advocated for regime change in Iran.
Trump may also recognize that such actions could compel the Iranians to negotiate from a position of weakness. However, it is important to note that the Iranians were already engaged in discussions, with a sixth round of talks involving Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff scheduled in Oman for Sunday.
Those talks are now canceled.
2. The middle ground - maintaining the current approach
Up to this point, Trump has consistently stated that the United States is not participating in Israel’s military actions.
An escalation presents significant and potentially impactful risks for Trump’s legacy. American naval destroyers and ground-based missile systems are already contributing to Israel's defense against potential Iranian retaliation.
Some advisers at the National Security Council are probably advising him to avoid any actions that could intensify Israel's military operations against Iran in the coming days, particularly since some Iranian missiles have already breached Israeli-US defenses with deadly consequences.
Netanyahu is currently claiming that attacking Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, would resolve the conflict rather than intensifying it.
However, an unnamed US official who spoke to several news outlets over the weekend indicated that Trump expressed his opposition to such an action.
3. Heeding the MAGA voices and reassessing
A major political consideration influencing Trump's decisions is his domestic backing.
The majority of Republicans in Congress continue to firmly support Israel, including the ongoing provision of military aid to the nation. Many have openly endorsed Israel's military actions against Iran.
However, there are significant figures within Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement who now completely oppose this long-standing "ironclad" support for Israel.
In the past few days, they have questioned why the United States is jeopardizing itself by potentially becoming embroiled in a Middle East conflict, contradicting Trump's "America First" foreign policy commitment.
The pro-Trump commentator Tucker Carlson expressed sharp criticism on Friday, asserting that the government's assertions of non-involvement were false, and argued that the US should "abandon Israel".
He implied that Mr. Netanyahu "and his war-hungry administration" were behaving in a manner that could provoke US troops to come to their assistance.
Carlson stated: "Getting involved would be a slap in the face to the millions of voters who cast their votes hoping to create a government that prioritizes the United States."
Likewise, the fervent Trump supporter US representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X that: "Anyone eager for the US to be fully engaged in the Israel/Iran conflict is not adhering to America First/MAGA principles."
This poses a significant vulnerability for Trump.
It increases the impetus for him to distance the United States from Israel's actions, and there are indications, at least publicly, that he has begun to do so.
The MAGA debate from the weekend coincided with him sharing on social media that he aligns with Russia's President Putin in advocating for an end to the conflict. By Sunday, he stated that Iran and Israel should negotiate, adding: "The US was not involved in the attack on Iran."
Iran has already warned of potential attacks on US bases in the region if, as is currently occurring, Washington supports Israel's defense.
The possibility of American casualties would likely intensify the MAGA isolationist narrative, potentially increasing pressure on Trump to reduce involvement and urge Mr. Netanyahu to conclude the offensive more swiftly.
0 Comments