Washington: President Donald Trump left the G7 summit in Canada earlier than expected, prompting speculation about his strategy regarding the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. His unexpected departure was attributed to “what’s going on in the Middle East,” according to the White House, although Trump clarified on Truth Social that it was unrelated to a ceasefire.
According to BBC, Trump’s statements on the Israel-Iran conflict have fluctuated between supporting Israel’s military strikes and distancing himself from them, adding to the uncertainty of the situation. As Israeli missiles targeted Tehran, Trump warned Iran of potential “even more brutal” attacks by Israel, armed with American bombs. Trump’s ultimate objective, similar to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s, is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, Trump has expressed a preference for achieving this through a US-Iran deal, reflecting his self-proclaimed image as a dealmaker. His approach has been inconsistent, sometimes favoring diplomatic solutions and other times hinting at the use of force.
Trump’s unpredictability is sometimes seen as strategic by his supporters, aligning with the “madman” theory of foreign relations, which suggests that deliberate uncertainty can coerce adversaries into compliance. Some of Trump’s advisers advocate for a strategy of “maximum pressure” on Iran, believing it will eventually force Iran to negotiate. This approach contrasts with the diplomatic path, which Iran had previously engaged in through a nuclear deal signed in 2015, which Trump later abandoned.
Israeli pressure on Trump to take a military approach is intense, with the US possessing weapons that could target Iran’s uranium enrichment sites. Meanwhile, hawkish Republicans in Congress continue to call for regime change in Iran, complicating Trump’s decision-making process. Despite reiterating that the US is not directly involved in Israel’s attacks, Trump’s decisions carry significant risks and could define his legacy. The presence of American naval destroyers and missile defenses supporting Israel’s defense against Iranian retaliation adds to the complexity of the situation.
Domestically, Trump’s decisions are influenced by his support base. While many Republicans back Israel, voices within Trump’s Make America Great Again movement are questioning the US’s involvement in the Middle East conflict, advocating for an “America First” approach. Pro-Trump figures like journalist Tucker Carlson and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene have criticized the administration’s support for Israel, highlighting a potential vulnerability for Trump. This internal debate coincides with Trump publicly calling for an end to the conflict and distancing the US from Israel’s offensive actions.
The ongoing conflict has raised concerns about potential American casualties, which could amplify the isolationist argument within Trump’s base. This growing pressure might lead Trump to reconsider his stance and encourage Netanyahu to seek a quicker resolution to the hostilities.