By Sunday, Trump was insisting that “Israel and Iran should make a deal” and they would with his help.
“The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight,” he wrote on Sunday.
“I think that President Trump has been very clear in his opposition to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was playing out.
Israel is believed to have destroyed the above-ground section of Iran’s uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
According to Nephew and Davenport, Trump indirectly fanned the flames of the military option when he pulled the US out of the JCPOA as president in 2018 at Israel’s behest.
The administration of US President Donald Trump is sending conflicting messages about whether it still supports a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program as the war between Iran and Israel intensifies.
The US and Iranian negotiators were scheduled to meet again this week, and it has publicly supported a negotiated agreement. Trump reiterated his commitment to a diplomatic resolution in a Truth Social post on Thursday. “.”.
But as Israel started attacking Iran, 14 hours later, Trump wrote on social media that he had given Iran 60 days to come to an agreement, and that time had passed. Trump was adamant by Sunday that “Israel and Iran should make a deal,” and he would assist them in doing so.
Trump posted that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and that “everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” as he got ready to leave the Group of Seven summit in Canada early on Monday. The US president later denied rumors that he had returned to Washington, DC, early to negotiate a ceasefire, saying it was for something “much bigger than that.”.
Trump’s vague remarks have stoked discussion among analysts regarding the actual scope of US engagement and goals in the Israel-Iran conflict.
discussing Trump’s nod and wink.
Trump has denied that the United States was involved in the strikes. “The U. A. had nothing to do with tonight’s attack on Iran,” he wrote on Sunday.
The US-based Arms Control Association’s director of nonproliferation policy, Kelsey Davenport, stated that Trump’s message had been unambiguous. President Trump has, in my opinion, been very clear in opposing the use of military force against Iran during the diplomatic process. Additionally, he reportedly retaliated against [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, she said.
Davenport stated that it is more likely that “Israel did not view [this as] matching its interests and objectives regarding Iran” and “was worried that diplomacy would succeed, that it would mean a deal.”.
Richard Nephew, a professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, concurred, stating that Israel was unhappy with Trump’s steady progress toward a partnership.
Nephew, who was the director for Iran at the US National Security Council under then-President Barack Obama from 2011 to 2013, stated, “I think that consistency has actually been the thing that’s the problem.”.
However, St Andrews University in Scotland’s Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history, disagreed.
The US knew. A wink is about right, he told Al Jazeera, “even if the precise timing did surprise them, they must have been aware.”.
However, the United States believes that Israel should take the initiative and handle this on its own, he added.
Would Trump become embroiled in the dispute?
The above-ground portion of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz is thought to have been destroyed by Israel. The facility’s uranium enrichment level is 60%, which is significantly higher than the 3–67% required for nuclear power but lower than the 90% required for an atomic bomb. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the underground enrichment section at Natanz might have also been harmed by the power outage caused by the Israeli strike.
Israel did not, however, harm Iran’s other uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain and also enriches uranium to 60% purity, according to the IAEA’s assessment.
Davenport pointed to the biggest US conventional bomb, the 13,600kg (30,000lb) Massive Ordnance Penetrator, and stated, “It’s likely that Israel would need US support if it actually wanted to penetrate some of these underground facilities.”.
Adding that Washington “has not transferred that bomb to Israel,” Davenport stated, “[With] repeated strikes with that munition, you could likely damage or destroy some of these facilities.”.
According to Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the US-based think tank Stimson Center, Israel would require US weapons to fulfill its declared goal of destroying Iran’s nuclear program, she also told Al Jazeera.
For one, Nephew did not rule out that possibility.
It is well known that Trump prefers to support the victorious party. The reason he is holding onto his position and why he believes we have a wink [to Israel] is because he believes the Israelis are currently winning, he stated.
The US ordered the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz to sail to the Middle East on Friday, and flew a number of midair refueling planes there as well. It declared on Tuesday that it would be deploying additional combat aircraft to the area.
Although Ansari acknowledged that the initial success of Israel’s attacks might make “Trump tempted to join in just to get some of the glory,” he believes that this could pressure Iran to back off.
“It is possible that the US will participate in an attack on Fordow, but I believe that the mere threat of an American attack will be enough to persuade the Iranians to engage in dialogue,” Ansari stated. They may have no other option, but they can honorably give in to the United States but not to Israel. “.”.
Sen. Tim Kaine of the United States, who is concerned about American involvement, introduced a war powers resolution on Monday that would require the US Congress to approve any military action against Iran.
“Unless a war with Iran is absolutely required to defend the United States, it is not in our national security interest to get into that war,” Kaine stated.
Force versus diplomacy.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the product of a diplomatic process that Obama chose because he did not think a military solution to Iran’s nuclear program was appealing or practical. As part of that agreement, the IAEA was to keep an eye on all of Iran’s nuclear operations to make sure that uranium enrichment only reached the levels needed to produce energy.
Nephew and Davenport claim that when Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA in 2018 at Israel’s insistence, he unintentionally fueled the military option.
In 2021, Iran refined uranium to 20 percent purity after announcing two years earlier that it would enrich it to 4–5% purity. As of 2023, the IAEA reported that it had discovered uranium particles at Fordow that were enriched to 83 percent pure.
Neither Trump nor his successor, Joe Biden, provided an alternative to the JCPOA during their first terms in office.
Nephew claimed that “setting [the JCPOA] on fire was a direct contribution to where we are today.”. He claimed that choosing a military route over a diplomatic one to stop a nuclear program “contributes to a proliferation path” because nations believe that following this course is the only way to protect themselves. “”.
According to Davenport, a specialist in North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, even the regime change Netanyahu has demanded in Tehran won’t resolve the issue.
“Changing a regime is not a surefire way to prevent proliferation,” she stated. What would happen in Iran if this regime were to overthrow is unknown to us. Nuclear weapons might be more likely if the military took over. Even with a more transparent democratic system of governance, democracies still decide to develop nuclear weapons. “.”.
