Insight: How Trump, a self-proclaimed "peacemaker," embraced Israel's campaign against Iran
WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - Roughly one month ago, from the stage at an investment forum in Saudi Arabia, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a warning to Iran that would prove prophetic.
"We'll never allow America and its allies to be threatened with terrorism or nuclear attack," Trump told the crowd, sending a message to the leadership in Tehran.
"The time is right now for them to choose. Right now. We don't have a lot of time to wait. Things are happening at a very fast pace."
That May 13 ultimatum received little attention at the time.
But behind the scenes, the president already knew an attack on Iran could be imminent - and that there might be little he could do to stop it, according to two U.S. officials.
By mid-May, the Pentagon had begun drawing up detailed contingency plans to aid Israel if it followed through on its long-held ambition to strike Iran's nuclear program, the officials said. And the U.S. had already diverted thousands of defensive weapons away from war-torn Ukraine toward the Middle East in preparation for potential conflict, according to a Western source familiar with the matter and a Ukrainian source.
The Pentagon declined to comment for this story.
This account of the weeks and days leading up to Trump's decision to throw his support behind Israel's bombing campaign is based on interviews with over a dozen administration officials, foreign diplomats and Trump confidantes, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The picture that emerges is that of a long, secretive preparation process and a president who for weeks found himself torn between diplomacy and supporting military action - and was ultimately persuaded in part by an ally whose actions he did not fully control.
While Trump has long described himself as a peacemaker - dispatching Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to the region several times to try to seal a diplomatic accord - he had several trusted political allies pushing him to back an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
And U.S. intelligence had indicated a unilateral Israeli strike was possible, even likely, even if Trump wanted to wait, according to two U.S. officials.
While it is unclear if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Trump's more hawkish allies ever got him to a "yes" to Israel's plans, by the days leading up the strike he was at least not a "no," according to two senior U.S. officials and a senior Israeli source.
That stance, people familiar with the dynamics said, helped tip Israel into action.
Seven days into the Israel-Iran conflict, Trump is left with a dilemma, said Aaron David Miller, a veteran diplomat who has advised six secretaries of state on Middle East policy.
He can try again to pursue a diplomatic resolution with Iran, allow Iran and Israel "to fight it out," or he can enter the war with U.S. airstrikes on the deeply buried Fordow enrichment plant, a step that would have unknown consequences for the region.
Trump "let it (the Israeli attack) happen," said Miller. "He got on the tiger and he's riding it."
The White House, the Israeli prime minister's office and Iran's delegation to the United Nations did not respond to a request for comment. Tehran has consistently said its nuclear program is designed for peaceful purposes only, a conclusion Washington has rejected.
One of the first hints that Trump might sign off on an Israeli bombing campaign came in April.
During a closed door meeting on April 17, Saudi Arabia's defense minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian: Take Trump's offer to negotiate an agreement seriously because it presents a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel.
Reuters could not determine whether the message was sent at Washington's behest, nor whether Iran's leaders took that message seriously.
With hindsight, they should have.
The Israel Defense Forces and the head of U.S. Central Command, General Michael "Erik" Kurilla, were discussing detailed intelligence about Iran's missile buildup and nuclear program and steps that could be required to defend U.S. troops and Israel itself in any conflict with Iran, according to a U.S. official and senior Israeli official.
Meanwhile, the U.S. was funneling weapons to Israel that would be useful for an air war with Iran. In one instance in early May, a large shipment of defensive missiles originally meant for Ukraine were diverted to Israel instead, according to the Western source and the Ukrainian source.
The diverted shipment caused consternation in Kyiv and sparked continued fears that additional weapons needed to defend against Moscow will instead be used to defend U.S. interests elsewhere, the Ukrainian source said.
In the opening months of Trump's term, Israel had already proposed to Washington a series of options to attack Iran's facilities, according to sources.
While Trump had rebuffed those ideas, saying he preferred diplomacy for the time being, several people close to him said he was never dead-set against using military force against Iran.
He had done so before. In 2020, despite a foreign policy during his first term that was otherwise marked by restraint, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed major general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' division responsible for its international operations.
The Iranian government has since sought to murder Trump in revenge, U.S. prosecutors have said, an allegation Tehran denies.
Behind the scenes, Trump had been pulled in multiple directions on the Iran issue since before he even took office.
On one side, many supporters - including conservative media personality Tucker Carlson - and administration officials saw Trump's Make America Great Again movement as an antidote to decades of foreign wars that cost thousands of American lives without significantly advancing American interests.
On the other, several close Trump allies - from conservative commentator Mark Levin to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham - were portraying a nuclear Iran as an existential threat that must be removed at any cost.
Trump himself took pride in being a broker of peace.
"My proudest legacy," he said during his inauguration address, "will be that of a peacemaker and unifier."
Ultimately, no U.S. official, Trump confidante or diplomat Reuters talked to identified an epiphany that tipped the scales for the president.
One senior administration official said that after months of sitting on the fence a lack of diplomatic progress, a push from the Israelis and appeals by hawkish allies likely wore him down.
Trump aides and allies have noted that Israel's attack unfolded just after the expiry of a 60-day deadline the Trump administration had set for a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran.
The senior U.S. official said another dynamic was at play: As U.S. intelligence consistently showed Israel might go ahead with an attack with or without U.S. support, the administration could look caught off guard if they did not get behind it. Worse, it could appear that the U.S. was opposing a longtime ally.
Although Trump had appeared to some to snub Netanyahu as he pushed for a peaceful solution to the crisis, privately, Israel understood that Washington would stand by it, said a separate official.
By the time Trump talked to Netanyahu on Monday, June 9 - one of many phone calls in recent days - his stance was one of tacit, if not explicit approval, according to one U.S. and one Israeli official.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had said he would like more time to see diplomacy play out. But the U.S. official said that he did not explicitly veto Israel's plans.
By Wednesday, June 11, it was clear to Washington that Israel's plans were a go.
That day, Reuters reported that the U.S. was preparing a partial evacuation of its Iraqi embassy amid fears of reprisals from Iran following an imminent attack.
The next day, June 12, Washington sent a formal diplomatic note to several regional allies, warning them that an attack was imminent.
That evening, Israel launched its overnight barrage, an attack that almost immediately escalated into an air war.
Trump and some key cabinet members watched the events live from the wood-paneled "JFK room," part of the White House Situation Room. Other officials watched the events nearby.
On the menu, per one official: stone crabs from a local restaurant.
The initial attack appeared to be a success, with several close advisers to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei killed and key nuclear sites seriously damaged. Over the weekend, the Israelis considered killing Khamenei himself, but were waved off by Trump, according to two U.S. officials.
Almost immediately, a political civil war erupted in Trump's Republican Party, with several high-profile conservatives, including members of Congress, accusing his administration of fanning the flames of war.
Seven days on, the U.S. intelligence community believes the strikes have set Iran's nuclear ambitions back by only months, according to a source familiar with U.S. intelligence reports, confirming a CNN report.
A significant blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, most analysts say, will require dropping bunker-busting bombs on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the crown jewel of Iran's nuclear program. Only the U.S. has that capability.
Trump has said he is considering such a strike, which would represent a major escalation for the United States.
As of Thursday, his intentions were still unclear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
Israeli strikes hit Iranian reactor being built, nearby plant, IAEA says
VIENNA, June 19 (Reuters) - Israeli military strikes hit Iran's Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, a project under construction that had not begun operating, and damaged the nearby plant that makes heavy water, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Thursday. Israel has struck several nuclear facilities in Iran. The heavy water reactor as originally designed would have been able to easily produce plutonium that could eventually have been used in a nuclear weapon, though Iran denies seeking such weapons. Under a 2015 deal with major powers, however, the plant was redesigned to reduce the proliferation risk and its core was removed and filled with concrete. Iran had informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency the reactor would start operation in 2026. "IAEA has information the Khondab (former Arak) heavy water research reactor, under construction, was hit. It was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so no radiological effects," the IAEA said in a post on X. Heavy water reactors use heavy water, also known as deuterium oxide, as a moderator, a material that slows down fast-moving neutrons released during the nuclear fission process that generates heat in the reactor. In its first posting on the attack, the IAEA said it had no information indicating the nearby plant that produces heavy water had been hit. It later issued a statement revising that assessment. "While damage to the nearby Heavy Water Production Plant was initially not visible, it is now assessed that key buildings at the facility were damaged, including the distillation unit," the IAEA statement said.
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
Here's how to teach controversial history
'The repeated refusal by Palestinian groups to accept the existence of Israel is a major obstacle to peace,' says a teenager passionately. 'There cannot be a negotiation when one side refuses to accept the other's existence.' Half an hour later, the same boy is arguing with what sounds like equal conviction that 'Israel has to be accountable for its actions. Until then, there will be no peace, just a surrender, and the people of Palestine will never accept surrender disguised as diplomacy.' He is not a boy who doesn't know what he thinks, but a pupil at Lancaster Royal Grammar School (LRGS), speaking in a debate between 13 to 15-year-olds from five schools in England, Scotland and Spain on which side is to blame for the failure of the Middle East peace process. In order that they should learn that the world is more complicated than good-and-evil narratives suggest, and that there is usually something to be said for the other person's point of view, pupils make both sides of each argument. Two teams of pupils take opposite sides in a debate and then swap causes after a break. The debates are organised by Parallel Histories, a charity set up by Mike Davies. When we shared a house at university, I would not have fingered him as a catalyst for social change. He was absurdly good looking and more into rowing than studying. But as a Quaker partly brought up in Belfast, he was interested in questions of peace and conflict. And he did like a good argument. After a successful business career, he became a history teacher at LRGS at 41. He taught feudalism by making a pile of desks, chairs and children to illustrate how uncomfortable it is at the bottom of the social hierarchy, and reconstructed the Battle of Hastings with a horse as a prop. But what he really wanted to teach was the historical roots of modern conflicts. So he organised a trip to Northern Ireland, where pupils met ex-IRA and ex-UVF fighters, and one to Israel/Palestine, where they talked to militants on both sides and played football in a refugee camp. Mike went back to Israel on a Winston Churchill fellowship to find out how history was taught. He realised it was impossible to teach a neutral history. Every event could be seen from both points of view. 'Our voters and future leaders,' he wrote in an article, 'need to understand there are always competing narratives, and to pick apart the propaganda and the facts.' He set up Parallel Histories to make that happen. Mike died last year, but Parallel Histories is flourishing. Now run by a former Labour minister, Bill Rammell, it works with 1,700 schools, training teachers, organising debates and providing materials, such as official documents and eye-witness accounts. Most are in Britain, but nearly 400 are in America. It offers pupils a rare chance to learn about contested subjects such as the Middle East, Northern Ireland and the British Empire. Schools tend to avoid such difficult topics. By providing the materials and the framework, Parallel Histories makes them safe. It has organised debates on the Middle East between Jewish and Muslim schools and about Northern Ireland between Protestant and Catholic schools. Watching that debate this week, I felt something was happening that could help counteract the polarisation pulling people apart. Conflicts become intractable because both sides are convinced their point of view is the only legitimate one. Seeing the argument from the other side is essential to resolving any conflict. That's what Parallel Histories teaches participants to do. So a girl from O Castro, an international school in Spain, argues that Israel cannot make peace with Palestine's corrupt and chaotic leadership — and then, swapping sides, that Israel's illegal settlements mean it is not an honest negotiating partner. Her classmate points to Hamas's electoral victory in 2006 as evidence Palestinians are not interested in peace; then making the opposite argument, he quotes an incendiary comment from Israel's national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and asks how the Palestinians can negotiate with people who think like that. The aim is not to change pupils' minds but it sometimes happens. 'Because of my family background,' said Adnan, a pupil at LRGS, when I talked to pupils after the debate, 'I grew up 100 per cent supporting the Palestinians. I still have more sympathy for them, but I can now see where the Israelis are coming from.' Ben's journey took him in the opposite direction. 'I used to think Israel was in the right, but I've come to understand it's very complex. They've both done stuff to each other over the years.' Although it was conceived before social media became the main source of news for young people, the programme helps counter some of its effects. 'It's very easy to get brainwashed on TikTok,' says Lewis, from South Molton Community College in Devon. His classmate Taylor agrees. 'It's all from the Palestinian perspective.' Pupils are encouraged to question sources — essential in an era of fake news. I listened to a detailed argument between pupils from Farlington, an independent school in Sussex, and O Castro about the trustworthiness of each other's material. Pupils learn useful skills too. Debating is tough: you've got to marshal facts, structure an argument and look people in the eye. 'I wasn't that comfortable with public speaking,' says Alex, another Devonian. 'It's really built my confidence.' Some arguments are intense, but they're all polite: participants disagree agreeably. Parallel Histories may not bring about world peace, but teaching teenagers to see things from somebody else's point of view is a good start. Well done, Mike.
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour fears repeat of Iraq war failures if it supports US strikes on Iran
Labour ministers fear that supporting the US in possible attacks on Iran could repeat the failures of the Iraq war. Senior government sources are concerned that backing American air strikes on a nuclear facility could be unlawful after Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, warned Sir Keir Starmer it could be illegal. Party figures also fear that supporting the US by allowing its military to carry out bombing runs from the UK's Diego Garcia air base in the Chagos Islands would be politically unpopular. The Telegraph has been told there is 'twitchiness' in No 10 over the situation because of Labour's legacy of involving the UK in the 2003 invasion of Iraq – at the urging of the US government – without a UN resolution. The UN's charter states that attacking another country is only permissible in international law in self-defence, to defend an ally or if it is authorised by the Security Council. Jonathan Powell, Downing Street's national security adviser, and Lord Mandelson, the British ambassador to the US, are among the officials dealing with the current crisis from the UK side. Both were confidantes of Sir Tony Blair at the time of the Iraq invasion, with Mr Powell serving as the No 10 chief of staff. Lord Mandelson, who was an ally on the Labour backbenches at the time, has since written that Sir Tony developed 'tunnel vision' over the war, and ignored his pleas in early 2003 to consider the 'political nuances' and 'practical implications' of an invasion. On Thursday, he joined David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, in Washington for meetings with US officials, including Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. Mr Lammy was planning to use the talks to attempt to persuade American officials that they should not intervene in the conflict between Iran and Israel, it is understood. It came as Donald Trump provisionally approved a plan to drop a 'bunker buster' bomb on Iran's main nuclear enrichment facility. On Thursday, the president said he would make a decision on whether to proceed with any US attack 'in the next two weeks'. US media report that the president is becoming increasingly convinced of the need to strike the Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant, which is buried deep beneath a mountain south-west of Tehran. If he does order an air strike, it is possible the US would use B-2 bombers stationed at Diego Garcia. Downing Street has publicly played down talk of Britain joining US forces, arguing on Thursday that 'de-escalation is the priority' in the region and that 'we would not want to see anything that ramps up the situation'. 'The continuation of the current situation is in no one's interest. We want to see cool heads and a return to diplomacy because that is the best route forward,' Sir Keir's official spokesman said. Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons, said MPs would get a vote on any sustained British military action. However, there are fears in Downing Street that publicly supporting Israel's attacks on Iran would alienate voters, as well as Labour MPs who have been campaigning against military action. On Thursday, Emily Thornberry, the Labour chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said that 'any of those justifications' for war in the UN charter did not apply because the UK was 'not under threat ourselves' and there was no Security Council resolution. Earlier this week, Richard Burgon, a Left-wing Labour MP, said that the Government must rule out military action in Iran because 'we saw with Iraq how following Right-wing US presidents into Middle East wars can end'. The Government has taken an increasingly hard line on Israel over the war in Gaza in recent months and last week took the unusual step of sanctioning two of the country's ministers. Polls show that around half of the public do not want Britain to intervene on either side of the conflict between Israel and Iran, while the majority of remaining voters say they either do not know which country to support or that the UK should back Israel. The UK has not been directly involved in protecting Israel from Iran's most recent missile attacks, although last year it did provide air-to-air refuelling support when Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles. A spokesman for Lord Hermer declined to comment on his legal opinion, but The Telegraph understands it was issued shortly after Israel's first attack on Iran last Thursday. He reportedly told Sir Keir that he had concerns about 'playing any role in this except for defending our allies' – one of the three justifications for such military action under the UN charter.
