The Israel-Iran conflict has escalated rapidly and beyond anyone’s calculations. What began as Israeli strikes on Iran-supported non-state groups has now moved up the conflict ladder, evolving into a far more dangerous inter-state clash. With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu taking it as a question of legacy to hit and eliminate Iranian nuclear facilities and sites, the Donald Trump administration faces one of its most critical decisions so far: decide to join Israel’s war by directly attacking Iran, or support Israel indirectly. This also transpired when the Trump team was in the middle of negotiating a nuclear deal with the Iranian government. Washington is clearly at a precipice in the West Asian imbroglio. And what Trump finally decides to do will change the course of this war and regional geopolitics.
In about two weeks, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced, President Trump would make a final call on the nature of the United States’ involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Trump even took to his Truth Social platform to refute a Wall Street Journal report, which contended that he had privately approved US plans to attack Iran. “The Wall Street Journal has No Idea what my thoughts are concerning Iran!” he said. Talking to reporters about the chances of Washington’s direct involvement in the conflict, he also said: “I have ideas on what to do, but I haven’t made a final (call) – I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due.”
Washington is at a precipice
As the mystery around Trump’s potential response deepens, the conflict itself stands at a critical juncture. Whether the US decides to enter into kinetic action against Iran or not will dramatically alter the regional security environment. The centre of attention now is the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility in northwestern Iran – apparently located hundreds of metres inside a mountain. Reportedly, Israeli military strike capabilities are not equipped to destroy this underground facility, hence the question of an American strike using bunker buster bombs such as the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP).
But then again, if reports are to be believed, Trump’s team is still weighing the chances of the MOP effectively destroying the Fordow site. A US official was quoted as saying: “We’re going to be ready to strike Iran. We’re not convinced yet that we’re necessary. And we want to be unnecessary, but I think the president’s just not convinced we are needed yet.” Trump is not considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons either, from what was reported out of a White House situation room meeting involving the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine.
The threat of Iran’s nuclear fuel enrichment reaching weapons-grade levels has dominated the discourse on US-Iran and Iran-Israel enmity since the days of George W. Bush’s presidency. And different options – ranging from biting sanctions, regime change, and military strikes – have been on and off the table.
Of these three options, sanctions have been used most aggressively, while the other two have been utilised as negotiating tools to coerce Tehran. The US and Israel also reportedly cooperated to develop the Stuxnet malware virus, which was introduced into the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility in Iran to compromise the centrifuge system. While Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity – neither confirming nor denying possession of nuclear weapons – it is widely considered to have them. Therefore, it considers a nuclear Iran in the region as a threat that it must curtail through all means possible.
The Barack Obama administration did manage to strike a multilateral bargain with Tehran in 2015 – along with other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany – in what is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The Trump administration, in its first term in 2018, unilaterally walked out of the JCPOA, promising to strike a better bargain for America. As Trump 2.0 navigates a West Asian region in inferno, which is starkly different from what the president encountered in his first term, the world watches out for Washington’s next course of action.
Also read: No country can stop Israel-Iran war now. For Netanyahu & Khamenei, it’s a zero-sum game
Who will have Trump’s ears?
Ever since Israel started attacking Iran, Trump and his team have been on their toes. The US president has been berating the Iranian regime, urging it to sign a nuclear deal before “it’s too late”. Negotiations are not being ruled out completely, though, and the Trump administration has not made any final call on the use of force by the US. As the White House press statement, quoting Trump, put it: “Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.”
Earlier in February, Trump signed a national security presidential memorandum (NSPM) to restore “maximum pressure” on Iran and deny it “all paths to a nuclear weapon, while countering the country’s “malign influence abroad”.
However, reports hinted at Trump making it clear that he was not in favour of using force, and that he preferred negotiations and talks as a first resort.
The Iranian side has retorted, saying that there is no room for negotiation with the US “until Israeli aggression stops”. However, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi has reportedly been meeting European counterparts and Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, for a breakthrough. Any decision to use force against Iran will be a dramatic break from Trump’s “America First” vision. So far, the Trump administration has taken a cautious position, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio calling Israel’s actions “unilateral”.
America’s strategic support for Israel and the synergy between their defence industrial conclaves are more or less ironclad. While the US has increased military deployments in the region, direct involvement through the use of kinetic force would still mark an unprecedented escalation. US Vice President JD Vance is also known for calling for restraint, as far as American involvement in foreign wars is concerned. Then, there are prominent ‘Make America Great Again (MAGA)’ influencers, and stars of the “America First” policy – such as former Fox primetime host Tucker Carlson and former White House political strategist Steve Bannon.
One of the more public displays of tension within the Trump team on Iran came in the form of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s testimony to the US Congress earlier this year. The US intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003,” she said.
When Trump was quizzed on this recently, he dismissed it saying, “I don’t care what she said”, and that he thought Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb. However, Gabbard later brushed it aside and blamed the media for reporting incomplete information. In the same testimony, Gabbard did say that Iran’s “enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
Will the current course of events force Trump’s hand and pull America into yet another West Asian quagmire is still anybody’s guess. We will know in two weeks or earlier, depending on how fast he changes his mind.
Monish Tourangbam is a Senior Research Consultant at the Chintan Research Foundation (CRF), New Delhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)