As the conflict between Iran and Israel escalates, US President Donald Trump’s administration has provided a mixed signal as to whether it still supports a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program.
Publicly, it supported the negotiated agreement, and US and Iranian negotiators were planning to meet again this week. Recently on Thursday, Trump argued in the Social Post of Truth: “We remain committed to diplomatic resolutions.”
However, 14 hours later, when Israel launched an attack on Iran, Trump posted that he had given Iran a 60-day deadline to reach an agreement, and that the deadline had passed. By Sunday, Trump insisted that “Israel and Iran should make a deal,” and they will have his help.
His warnings became even more sinister on Monday as Trump prepared to leave Canada’s seven summits early. He posted that Iran could not have nuclear weapons and that “everyone should avoid Tehran soon!” The US president later denied speculation that he returned to Washington, D.C. early to negotiate a ceasefire.
Trump’s vague statement fostered a debate among analysts about the true scope of our involvement and intentions in the Israeli-Iran conflict.
Discuss Trump’s wink and nod
Trump denies that we are involved in the strike. “The United States had nothing to do with the attack on Iran tonight,” he wrote on Sunday.
Kelsey Davenport, director of non-proliferation policies at the US-based Arms Control Association, said Trump’s message was clear. “I think President Trump was very clear in opposition to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was playing it, and the reports suggest that he fought back. [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” she said.
More likely, “Israel was worried that diplomacy would be successful, and that it meant a deal,” Davenport said. [this as] It coincides with its interests and objectives regarding Iran.”
Richard ne, a professor at Columbia University’s Faculty of International Public Relations, agreed, saying it was Trump’s consistent march towards a deal that plagued Israel.
“The nephews are the director of Iran on the US National Security Council under then-President Barack Obama from 2011 to 2013,” said the nephew, who served as director of Iran on the US National Security Council.
However, Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, opposed.
“The US knew… Wink is right because even if certain timings surprised them, they must have noticed,” he told Al Jazeera.
“At the same time, the US view is that Israel must take the lead and actually do this on its own,” he said.
Is Trump likely to be sucked into conflict?
Israel is believed to have destroyed the ground sector of Iran’s uranium enrichment facility in Natanz. The facility enriches uranium to 60% purity, far exceeding the 3.67% required for nuclear power and below the 90% required for an atomic bomb. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), power losses at Natantz as a result of the Israeli strike could have also damaged the underground enrichment section of Natantz.
However, in the IAEA evaluation, Israel did not damage other uranium enrichment plants in Iran in Fordau. Fordau was buried in the mountains and uranium was enhanced to 60% purity.
“If you want to actually penetrate some of these underground facilities, Israel may need US assistance,” Davenport said, pointing to a large weapon intruder weighing 13,600 kg (30,000 pounds).
“[With] It could be repeated strikes with that ammunition, causing damage or destroying parts of these facilities,” Davenport said Washington “has not moved that bomb to Israel.”
Barbara Slavin, a well-known fellow at the Stimson Centre, a US-based think tank, also told Al Jazeera that Israel needs US weapons to complete the stated mission to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.
ne, one did not underestimate the possibility that it could happen.
“We know that [Trump] I like being on the winner’s side. As long as he now recognizes the Israelites as winners, that is why he maintains his position and why do we think we have a wink? [to Israel]He said.
On Friday, the US ordered numerous air exhaust aircraft to fly to the Middle East and sail to the aircraft’s airline USS Nimitz. On Tuesday it announced that it would send more fighter jets to the area.
Ansari agreed that the initial success of Israeli attacks could mean “Trump is seduced to take part in just to get glory,” but he believes this could put Iran against it.
“I think that the US is taking part in the attack on Fordor, even the real threat of the US attack will bring Iranians to the table,” Ansari said. “They can be honored and recognized by the United States. They cannot do it in Israel, but they may not have a choice.”
Keeping an eye on US involvement, U.S. Sen. Tim Kane introduced a war power resolution Monday that required the US Congress to approve military action against Iran.
“It’s not a national security interest to participate in a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to protect the United States,” Kane said.
Diplomatic vs. power
Obama didn’t believe that military solutions were attractive or viable for Iran’s nuclear program. He chose the diplomatic process that would bring about a joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA) in 2015. The agreement called for ensuring that the IAEA reaches the level necessary for energy production to monitor all of Iran’s nuclear activities.
According to ne and Davenport, Trump indirectly incited the flames of military choice when he plucked the US from the JCPOA at Israel’s request in 2018.
Two years later, Iran said it would concentrate uranium to 4.5% purity, refined it to 20% purity in 2021. In 2023, the IAEA said it had discovered that uranium particles in Fordow were concentrated to 83.7% purity.
Trump did not offer a replacement for the JCPOA during his first presidential term, and President Joe Biden was not following him either.
“setting [the JCPOA] He said nephew wanted military paths instead of diplomatic paths to cut nuclear programs, “I will contribute to the path of spread.”
Davenport, an expert on nuclear and missile programs for Iran and North Korea, said that even the Tehran government change that Netanyahu requested would not resolve the issue.
“A change of government is not a guaranteed non-proliferation strategy,” she said. “If this regime collapses, we don’t know what will come next in Iran. If it’s a military seizure rule, nuclear weapons may be more likely. But even if it’s a more open democratic government, democracy also chooses to build nuclear weapons.”
