Did Trump fuel the current conflict between Iran and Israel during his first term? | DW News

Key Concepts:

• Potential US military intervention in Iran
• Iranian nuclear facilities and uranium enrichment program
• JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - Iran nuclear deal)
• Trump's negotiating tactics and rhetoric
• Israeli strikes on Iran
• Regional implications and potential for escalation
• US public opinion on military intervention
• Congressional authorization for war
• Diplomatic solutions vs. military options

1. Trump's Stance on Iran:

• President Trump expresses dwindling patience with Iran, calling their leaders "bullies" and suggesting it's "very late to be talking now."
• He neither confirms nor denies the possibility of a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, stating, "nobody knows what I'm going to do."
• Trump claims Iran is "totally defenseless" with "no air defense whatsoever" and that the US has "totally captured the air."
• He insists Iran wants to negotiate, but he questions why they didn't negotiate before "all this death and destruction."
• Trump demands Iran's unconditional surrender and abandonment of its uranium enrichment program.

2. Iranian Response:

• Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejects Trump's demands and warns the US against military intervention, stating that America would suffer "irreparable damage."

3. Analysis of Trump's Rhetoric and Strategy (Rosemary Kalanic, Defense Priorities):

• It's unclear if Trump has a clear strategy or is "flying by the seat of his pants."
• Kalanic believes Trump is still interested in making a deal with Iran and that this is why the US hasn't struck yet.
• She acknowledges Trump's "bluster" is intended to make his threats more credible.
• Iran was negotiating with the US, with a scheduled meeting that was disrupted by events.
• Kalanic believes Trump is "100% interested in a diplomatic solution" and that he didn't want Israel to strike Iran.
• She suggests Trump is trying to "save face" by claiming the current situation was the plan all along.
• Trump's use of "we" signals a desire to claim ownership of perceived successes, even if the US isn't directly involved in offensive actions.

4. The JCPOA and its Impact:

• Pulling out of the JCPOA was a "terrible mistake" by Trump, as Iran was complying with the deal, which had strong safeguards and would have delayed Iran's ability to enrich at higher levels.
• The current crisis was caused by Trump's decision to withdraw from the JCPOA and impose a 60-day deadline.
• US intelligence did not believe Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, even though they had a centrifuge enrichment program.
• Iran's enrichment to 60% was likely a negotiating tactic to secure a deal.

5. Military Options and Potential Consequences:

• Military options are "not good," and there hasn't been enough realistic discussion about them.
• Air strikes alone are unlikely to destroy Iran's entire nuclear program, which is spread across multiple sites, some deep underground.
• The only way to be sure of destroying the program is by putting "boots on the ground," which the US public opposes.
• Kalanic warns that limited involvement could lead to a larger commitment and US troop deployment.
• The best-case scenario (though not her preferred one) would be the US joining the strikes and still being able to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but this would require cooperation from Iran or boots on the ground to verify destruction of sites.

6. Domestic Political Considerations:

• Key figures like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon oppose US intervention in Iran.
• A war with Iran could undermine Trump's support among his base, as "no foreign wars" is a core element of the MAGA movement.
• It's not legal for the president to launch a war against a country that hasn't attacked the US without congressional authorization, leading to a potential showdown.

7. Regional Implications (Bentella, Heinrich Böll Foundation):

• The conflict between Israel and Iran could become a world war, forcing regional partners and allies to take sides.
• The situation is a "dangerous escalation" with mutually escalating rhetoric and the risk of spreading throughout the region.
• It's unclear what the "endgame" is for the conflict parties and how it would avoid a military solution.
• An escalation between Israel and Iran would be negative for neighboring countries, impacting their economies and potentially spiraling out of control.
• Most states in the region are not in favor of Iran and see the destabilizing potential.
• Iran has been relatively isolated in the region, with limited support from other countries.
• The speed of the escalation and Trump's strong statements are surprising, given his past signals of preferring a political solution and avoiding direct US military involvement.

8. Synthesis/Conclusion:

The situation involving the US, Iran, and Israel is highly volatile and complex. Trump's rhetoric is unpredictable, and his strategy is unclear. While he expresses a desire for a deal with Iran, his actions and statements suggest a willingness to consider military options. Experts warn that military intervention could have disastrous consequences, including a wider conflict and the need for US troop deployment. The JCPOA's collapse has significantly contributed to the current crisis. Domestically, Trump faces potential opposition from his base and Congress if he pursues military action without authorization. Regionally, the conflict threatens to destabilize the Middle East and draw in other countries. The possibility of a diplomatic solution remains, but it requires restraint and a willingness to negotiate from all parties.