Thoughts on Iran, Israel, and Trump
Buckle up.
As of this writing on the afternoon of June 17th, Operation Rising Lion — i.e., Israel’s attack on Iran that began last Friday — has gone pretty well from Netanyahu’s point of view.
Consider: Israel’s first attacks damaged Iran’s nuclear facilities and decimated its military leadership. Despite Iranian missile attacks, Israel now possesses air superiority over Iranian airspace, an extraordinary tactical and strategic accomplishment. Iran’s erstwhile allies, like Russia and Hezbollah, are focused on their own issues and appear to be sitting this fight out. Iran’s citizens are fleeing Tehran in droves. As David Ignatius observed, Iran’s inability to mount much of a resistance to the Israeli onslaught weakens an already unpopular theocratic regime: “Its weakness and corruption are a national embarrassment…. When top military leaders were killed in their apartments, a jaundiced Iranian asked why they were all living in penthouses.” And the Israeli public is liking what they are seeing.
The question is what happens next. Dalia Dassa Kaye knows way more about the region than I do, and she does not think this war is going to end anytime soon: “For many years both Iran and Israel had reasons to avoid a direct war of this nature, and many in the region and globally sought to prevent it. But those days are over. The war is here, and it is not clear if there is anyone willing or able to stop it.”
Robert Pape warns that Israeli air power will not be enough for it to achieve its desired goals: “if the historical record is any indication, Israel’s overconfidence in what its technologically advanced weapons can do is likely to harden Iran’s resolve and produce the opposite of its intended results: a more dangerous Iran, now armed with nuclear weapons.”
All of Netanyahu’s gains to date will be ephemeral if Iran is able to fight on indefinitely. The question, therefore, is whether what Netanyahu wants to happen next will actually happen: U.S. involvement in the attacks on Iran.
When Israel attacked last week, the Trump administration’s messaging amounted to, “we had nothing to do with this!” Even after the first wave of successful attacks, there were reports that Trump wanted to arrange a meeting with Iran’s leaders to negotiate a cease-fire and a new nuclear deal.
The signs that Trump is thinking about joining in the attack, however, are mounting:
U.S. allies are saying that Trump is considering getting involved. According to Politico, “German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Tuesday that the U.S. is weighing participating in Israel’s military campaign in Iran and that a decision could be imminent.”
The U.S. military is deploying more air and naval military assets to the region, thereby giving the Trump administration more military options.
Energy markets are reacting as though traders expect that the U.S. will get involved.
Both the New York Times and Axios have reports suggesting Trump is ready to join the conflict. The NYT story says, “Mr. Trump is seriously considering sending American aircraft in to help refuel Israeli combat jets and to try to take out Iran’s deep-underground nuclear site at Fordo with 30,000-pound bombs — a step that would mark a stunning turnabout from his opposition just two months ago to any military action while there was still a chance of a diplomatic solution.” The Axios account is similar.
JD Vance is now sounding more hawkish, while Trump himself rubbished what his own Director of National Intelligence said about Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Trump’s social media posts on Iran are sounding way more belligerent.
These are only signs. As I write this, Trump has convened a meeting in the Situation Room about what to do next. My intel inside that room is limited, and I can see Trump being whipsawed by conflicting impulses as he puzzles out what to do next. Here is my guide for how to think about what Trump is thinking.
First, Trump is a lazy writer. Don’t read too much into any of Trump’s social media posts suggesting the U.S. has already joined the fight. Remember, on Monday night Trump called for the citizens of Tehran to evacuate the city without any consideration of the consequences. As meaningful as it might be that Trump said, “we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran” or “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” For Trump, these could just be attempts to convince the Iranians that he is going to attack — not that he is actually going to attack. It is entirely possible that Trump is attempting what Elizabeth Saunders describes as “‘one weird trick’ diplomacy.
Second, Trump is unconstrained. Elizabeth Saunders made this depressing but accurate point in Foreign Affairs:
Trump governs today in the wake of the near-complete dismantling of checks and balances on the executive branch, at least in the foreign policy and national security realm….
Washington has never been a paragon of virtue in its dealings abroad, but the extraordinary nature of Trump’s second term makes clear that presidents before him were indeed more constrained in their foreign policy. Unrestrained, the president is functionally equivalent to a dictator in the realm of national security—one who can translate any impulse into policy on a whim.
That’s okay, it is not like all of this foreign policy power has been bestowed upon an immature, impulsive leader — wait.
Third, Trump is poorly staffed. Just read Kerry Howley’s profile of Pete Hegseth play-acting his role as Secretary of Defense or the NBC News reporting that no one competent wants to work for Hegseth or recall Tulsi Gabbard’s general weirdness or the utter absurdity of Marco Rubio working at four jobs and doing all of them badly. That would be the moment when you realize that there are no adults in the Situation Room. This is an administration in which, during foreign policy crisis, there is Trump’s whims and little else.
Maybe one of Trump’s staffers will influence him just by being the last one to talk to him before he has to make his decision. What I am saying is that no one with that opportunity has the slightest bit of gravitas. Trump will be advised…. poorly.
Fourth, Trump is a frontrunner. If he thinks Israel has sufficiently degraded Iran’s capabilities with its assault to date, it’s not hard to see him deciding that the risks might be tolerable for U.S. involvement. From the Times account of his thinking:
As the night wore on and the Israelis landed a spectacular series of precision strikes against Iranian military leaders and strategic sites, Mr. Trump began to change his mind about his public posture.
When he woke on Friday morning, his favorite TV channel, Fox News, was broadcasting wall-to-wall imagery of what it was portraying as Israel’s military genius. And Mr. Trump could not resist claiming some credit for himself.
In phone calls with reporters, Mr. Trump began hinting that he had played a bigger behind-the-scenes role in the war than people realized. Privately, he told some confidants that he was now leaning toward a more serious escalation: going along with Israel’s earlier request that the United States deliver powerful bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordo.
The more Trump believes that Israel is winning and has reduced the risk of Iranian retaliation, the more likely Trump’s inner bully thinks he can get involved militarily with minimal risks. But…
Fifth, if the going gets tough, Trump will get going. Remember that Trump has already ended one aerial assault on a hostile Middle Eastern actor after he got easily frustrated with the lack of immediate success. As Jeremy Shapiro has noted, when it comes to military engagements Trump disdains any sustained commitment. If this war lasts — and experts like Kaye and Pape think that this is likely — Trump will be looking for his escape route faster than anyone else on the chessboard.
Developing…
Iran is not Iraq. It is a nation of 90 million people and even in its weakened state is far more dangerous than Iraq ever was. Even if there were a regime change, new Iranian leadership will have *no* leeway to be anything but hostile to Israel and the U.S. after this. If necessary the Iranians will wait years to get their revenge.
The assertions by so many both within the Trump coterie and those who commentate on it, that Trump 'is still deciding whether to get involved' or other words to that effect, are pure hypocrisy else a lack of intellect.
Trump and the USA *are*involved. They have been involved for over 7 decades. They are the ones who have funded and armed Israel with increasingly sophisticated weapons and intelligence and who continue to do so.
The statements by Trump, Rubio, the State Department Press Secretary and many others that Trump is a 'peace-maker' and has constantly worked to achieve permanent cease-fires in the Israel genocide in Gaza, the Russian 'special operation' invasion of Ukraine and now the attack by Israel on Iran, are all blatant nonsense. In no way do they stand up to scrutiny.
Netanyahu has acknowledged that his forces cannot take out the underground bunker that houses Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities without USA military involvement. The USA has already supplemented Israel's air defences and shot down missiles. Trump has made many statements effectively supporting Putin, has treated Yelensky abominably and his administration have reduced aid to Ukraine and, indeed, other European powers and NATO such that they are less equipped to help Ukraine stop Russia's incursion. In Palestine, the US has continued its funding and arming of Israel and Trump has made several outrageously appalling suggestions that the Palestinians should relocate and shown not even sympathy, let alone empathy with a people suffering genocide at the hands of the Israelis whilst the USA has at least five times vetoed UN resolutions for a permanent cease fire.
Much more could be evidenced in this vein yet the reality is that Trump could have probably have stopped all of these conflicts had he acted appropriately and objectively and honestly and in the interests of peace. Instead, he has incited increasing conflict, emboldened Netanyahu, praised Putin and declared that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon." - Israel, France, Germany, UK, Russia, China, North Korea, USA all have nuclear weapons, is my understanding. So, is Trump the 'King of the World'. By what right is it that he can deny the right of Iran to build what is already possessed by so many other nations?
No, I don't argue that it would be a good thing for Iran to obtain such a weapon, however they have continually stated that such is not what they seek, simply access to nuclear power for energy purposes. Should we distrust them simply because they are neither western, nor 'Christian', and a theocracy rather than a 'democracy', particular when our democracies increasingly appear to be more autocracies or, in the USA case, dictatorships?
How many times has the USA made military incursions / invasions into other sovereign nations as compared with Iran or Russia or China? Which nation is the major contributor to international conflict?
No, the assertions, declarations, claims of Trump being a peace-maker and the USA a nation promoting peace are nothing more than hypocrisy - illusion - delusion.
Trump and his corrupt and incompetent administration ought to be removed and removed now. There is ample evidence that he has no regard for the American Constitution, the Judiciary, the Rule of Law - national or international, for a peaceful World, for equitable diplomacy rather than bullying or for sound, well-considered and productive decision making. To add insult to injury, he is also lacking in compassion, has neither respect nor empathy for the millions of immigrants who have contributed and do contribute so much to the USA life and economy, pardons rightly convicted criminals, rewards the wealthy whilst common people have their homes repossessed or are never able to afford one in the first place.
Trump is a disaster for the USA and a disaster for the World. His election shows one of the major flaws of democracy, as worthwhile as it may be, i.e. that the masses are rarely in the best position or the best skilled and knowledgeable to make positive and broad decisions about what is best for the nation and *all* or the vast majority of the people, as opposed to the wealthy, powerful, elite and famous. That is particularly true when they are whipped into frenzy by false promises and directions towards a target that is only partly responsible for their hurt and anger and situation - a direction the result of which, when they win, "throws out the baby with the bathwater".
There is no need for anyone to accept the criminality of Netanyahu and Israel's actions and, in doing so, any moral right to the 'high ground' and argue against subsequent such actions by others will have little if any credibility.
If Trump wants peace, he can have it. He only needs to make the right choices and voice them. However, it would seem that either he is too ignorant or too callous to do that for he appears to strut around and pontificates without any realisation that he imitates the protagonist of the "Emperor's New Clothes."