The US President's sabre-rattling over Iran could land him where he said he would never go
cancel email WhatsApp link share Share bookmark Save
share cancel email WhatsApp link bookmark
What a rollercoaster Donald Trump has taken us on in less than a week since Israel first stunned the world by launching its military strikes on Iran.
Last Sunday, after the news broke, he raced to social media to insist that his administration had “nothing to do” with Israel’s military action and still hoped that, via ongoing talks with Iran, “we can easily get a deal done…and end this bloody conflict”.
Fast-forward a mere 96 hours, and the US President was holed up with his national security team in the White House situation room mulling a major escalation in the conflict, hours after departing the G7 summit early where he had — only grudgingly — signed a declaration calling for de-escalation.
Trump always likes to keep his adversaries guessing about his true intentions. But after Sir Keir Starmer told reporters at the summit in Canada that he had dined alongside the President on Tuesday night and was in “no doubt” about his commitment to de-escalation, Washington’s allies must now also be dubious about the quixotic American leader’s next move.
A billboard addressed to Trump in Tel Aviv on Wednesday after Israel and Iran continued missile exchanges overnight (Photo: Gil Cohen-Magen/AFP)
Israel wants him to fire up his B-2 bombers and order US Air Force pilots to drop 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs – the country’s most powerful non-nuclear weapons – in order to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities once and for all.
Trump is now suddenly portraying himself entirely at the centre of the conflict, demanding Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” on social media, warning Tehran’s 10 million residents to evacuate the city, and insisting that he knows the location of Iran’s Supreme Leader but has decided not to assassinate him yet.
As the US President extemporises, it is impossible to identify any clear White House strategy in the conflict.
On the one hand, Trump projects himself as itching to reduce Iran’s nuclear facilities to dust. On the other hand, he blames the Iranian authorities for failing to strike an agreement with Washington within a 60-day deadline laid down by the White House, cajoling them to do so now. Israel attacked on day 61, even as the American and Iranian negotiating teams were planning to meet 48 hours later.
Trump with Tucker Carlson in October. Carlson has urged the US President not to join Israel in its fight against Iran (Photo: Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP)
If Trump is not bluffing and decides to unleash his “Massive Ordinance Penetrator” GBU-57 bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities, there can be no guarantees about the consequences of his actions.
Iran warned on Wednesday that US intervention in the conflict “would be a recipe for all-out war in the Middle East”. Even if Trump believes that the eradication of Iran’s nuclear bunkers will be the end of the affair, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still hopes to foment regime change in Tehran, and has actively urged the Iranian people to rise up against the country’s mullahs.
If Trump now fails to act, he runs the risk of being seen, yet again, as a busted flush. The claim that “Trump Always Chickens Out” (with the associated acronym “TACO”, applied to him by Wall Street traders over his brinksmanship over tariffs) would soon describe his foreign policy as well.
Iran’s rulers may draw the conclusion already shared by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping that Trump’s bark conceals a lack of killer instinct to take them on.
He also faces pressure from some of his own core supporters, with former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson promoting the view that America has no business getting involved in the conflict and would risk another Vietnam-style quagmire if it acts.
In a fiery interview on Tuesday with Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Carlson revealed that his guest was unable to cite the size of Iran’s population, nor its ethnic make-up.
It’s a fair bet that Trump could not answer those questions either. “You’re a Senator who’s calling for the overthrow of the Iranian Government”, shouted Carlson, “and you don’t know anything about the country!”
After campaigning on a promise to end America’s “forever wars”, Trump in his inaugural address just five months ago told Americans that he would measure his own success “not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps more importantly, the wars we never get into”.
If that remains his touchstone, it may indicate that a climbdown will soon be on the horizon. But for now, the US President’s sabre-rattling suggests a desire to get in on the action, and worry about a forever war later.
slalomcone on June 18th, 2025 at 16:29 UTC »
Last week, Bibi was under investigation . He interrupted & delayed the court appearance by saying he had an urgent diplomatic call ; the following day , he left the court citing feeling ill . It was the next day or two that Israel struck Iran . Why at this time ?
Sprintzer on June 18th, 2025 at 15:14 UTC »
It’s quite unlikely we see US boots on the ground. However this would be really the only way to introduce regime change in Iran.
Air Campaigns can inflict a ton of damage but they simply cannot overthrow a regime given the IRGC has a stranglehold over the government. There is very little organized opposition in Iran.
Yes, a majority of Iranians are not fans of the current regime. But that doesn’t mean they will rise up.
Regime change can only occur organically or via boots on the ground.
SystematicHydromatic on June 18th, 2025 at 13:58 UTC »
Dropping bombs on a country without ever setting foot on to it's soil isn't a "forever war". It's just an attack.
Edit: verbiage corrected for Professor Doolittle