Latest news with #IsraelSecurity
CNN
a day ago
- Politics
- CNN
Trump's two-week delay on Iran strike decision leaves Israel in limbo
US President Donald Trump's self-imposed two-week delay to decide whether to strike Iran has sparked confusion and conjecture in Israel. Some of Israel's most senior officials had openly pushed for US involvement, arguing that American military involvement can shorten the conflict and allow Israel to achieve its goal of removing what is has long perceived as an existential threat of a nuclear Iran armed with ballistic missiles. 'We believe that the United States of America and the president of the United States have an obligation to make sure that the region is going to a positive way and that the world is free from Iran that possesses (a) nuclear weapon,' former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told CNN earlier this week. Gallant was involved in planning the Iran operation before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fired him in November. But after Trump's new timeline, Israel's political leaders are being careful in their statements, not wanting to be seen as pushing the president into the exact type of Middle East conflict he has long sought to avoid. Netanyahu and others are more cautious now in their public messaging, extolling the potential benefits of US involvement without calling for it. CNN spoke to half a dozen Israeli officials to better understand how the country's leadership sees this critical moment in the conflict, as Trump weighs whether to join the Israel's ongoing military campaign. Most spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the relations between the US and Israel. US involvement would dramatically change the nature of the conflict, Israel has argued, including a far greater chance of successfully striking Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, which is hidden deep in a mountain south of Tehran. Such a decisive strike would likely require 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs carried only by American bombers. 'There is an understanding that the Israelis will go for Fordow anyway, but it can be much nastier and less decisive without the Americans,' said Yaki Dayan, the former Israeli consul general in Los Angeles. After the first week of Israel's strikes in Iran, the Israeli military no longer has the element of surprise, and the country's political leadership must decide how far to go with the campaign, a decision that relies heavily on what Trump decides to do. Israel has followed closely the debate within Trump's MAGA base between the more isolationist wing that opposes US involvement in a new Middle East war and the camp that sees this as the best opportunity for decisive military action against Iran. The political echelon has been careful in its public statements because of the isolationist wing, Dayan told CNN, but Israel's perspective is getting across, with Netanyahu confidant Ron Dermer and others giving interviews to right-wing media outlets in the US. Publicly, Netanyahu has effusively praised Trump. On Wednesday, the Israeli leader said the two speak 'frequently.' In a pre-recorded video statement, Netanyahu said, 'I think President Trump for his backing.' But Trump has deviated from the US' traditional pro-Israel footing in the Middle East, including on negotiations with Iran, a ceasefire deal with the Houthis, and a trip to the region that skipped Israel. The White House decisions have exposed sharp divides between the two leaders. Even so, the two governments have maintained an ongoing dialogue since Israel began attacking Iran. Dayan said that coordination between Netanyahu and Trump is 'much better than people think,' but acknowledged that Trump makes decisions unilaterally, after consulting only a small circle of advisers. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was meeting his counterparts from the UK, Germany and France on Friday in Switzerland, which will allow the US to gauge the viability of a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program. On Thursday, the White House said the contact between the US and Iran 'has continued' without offering any details of the communications, even as Trump weighs military strikes. But the government has not signaled any sense of hysteria about Trump's decision to hold off on a strike on Iran for two weeks. Several Israeli officials who spoke with CNN see the president's statement as 'smoke and mirrors,' as one put it – part of a deception act to keep Tehran guessing when Trump has already decided to get the US involved. 'He wouldn't give himself a deadline that he would have to keep to if he hadn't already made the decision,' the official said, while acknowledging this interpretation is the most favorable to Israel. But others who spoke with CNN were more concerned. 'If you follow the statements for the last two or three weeks, it's been a lot of zigzagging,' said another Israeli official. What seemed like a certainty to Israeli officials just 48 hours ago – that Trump would order US military involvement – now appears far less assured. Trump went from saying 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran' – taking credit for Israel's military successes – to giving himself two more weeks to make what could be one the most fateful foreign policy decisions of his presidency. Israel launched the operation against Iran without a commitment from the US that it would take part in the campaign, officials have said, but the belief was that the headlines of Israel's military accomplishments could entice Trump to authorize US military involvement. But as the campaign enters its second week, Israel's 'pace of success is slowing down,' the official said. And as Israel continues its operations over Iran – roughly a thousand miles away – the likelihood of error is increasing, which could affect not only Israel's actions, but also reduce the chance of US involvement. 'Every day that this goes on, there's a greater chance that something goes wrong,' the official said, without elaborating. 'They don't know what this means,' Alon Pinkas, the former Israeli consul general in New York City, told CNN. 'Israel will get more worried with each day that passes.' Pinkas said Trump's deadline to make a decision underscores that the American leader 'cannot be deciphered.' It also raises the possibility that 'maybe Netanyahu overplayed his cards here,' he added.
The Sun
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Britain will NEVER be safe until Iran's nuke scheme is crushed…this is our Churchill moment, Israeli ambassador says
BRITAIN will never be safe until Iran's nuclear scheme is wiped out, Israel's ambassador told The Sun. Tzipi Hotovely said Israel is facing its "Churchill moment" and doing the UK a "huge service" by wiping out the rogue state's efforts to create a nuke weapon. 8 8 8 She also rebuked Sir Keir Starmer 's calls for de-escalation as she insisted Tel Aviv acted at the "last minute" to save their country from "nuclear holocaust". The PM - who chaired an emergency Cobra meeting today - has insisted that the UK wants to de-escalate the situation and resolve it through diplomacy. But Amb. Hotovely said Iran had its chance for diplomacy during Donald Trump 's 60-day deadline to t hrash out a deal over its nuclear programme. And she warned the UK would never be safe until Iran loses any chance of developing a nuke. The diplomat said Israel is facing its "Churchill moment" as Netanyahu finds himself in a similar position as the British wartime leader did in 1940 - drawing the US into a war with its enemy. Speaking to The Sun at its headquarters in London, she said: "When they're calling for de-escalation, you need to understand that the only way to de-escalate the situation is by removing the threat. "As long as Iran will race faster to have its ballistic missile programme that can destroy cities in Israel, if we will let them continue with that, cities in the UK won't be safe. "If we hadn't stopped them now, we could have woken up one day in the morning having a headline in the news saying Iran reached nuclear capabilities and now it's a nuclear country. "And this is too late for everyone to operate. "We were really operating in the last minute for us to save us from a nuclear holocaust." Trump 'considers bombing Iran' as Ayatollah 'prepares for strikes against US bases' & blasts more rockets at Israel "And we're doing a huge service to people in this country as well, because Iran for a long time has been an enemy for the UK as well." Arch-foes Israel and Iran have continued to trade deadly blows since Benjamin Netanyahu began operation Rising Lion last Friday. But the conflict has now reached a critical juncture as Trump mulls whether to unleash US force on the rogue state. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has vowed "irreparable damage" should the US join Israel's blitz as the dictator rejected Trump's demand for unconditional surrender. Trump had given Tehran a 60-day ultimatum to make a deal - a deadline that slipped by last week. The US president could now soon pull the trigger and strike Iran as he issued a chilling threat: "We won't take out Khamenei - at least not for now". 8 8 8 Amb. Hotovely said Israel will not stop its operation until "the threat from Iran is removed". She also hailed Israeli citizens for their resilience invoking "the spirit of the Blitz". The diplomat said: "The Israeli people know they're facing a very radical enemy like the British people were fighting in the Second World War and that they must get to the point where it's being defeated. The Iranians have proven they have no interest in diplomacy. They were just using diplomacy to keep on running their nuclear programme. "And President Trump kind of lost patience with this type of behaviour. He said it clearly, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. "We gave a chance to diplomacy. We backed up the American diplomatic plan - 60 days expired. "They didn't come to the table. That's what the Prime Minister said, they want to blow up the table, not to sit next to it. "And we are now certain that once this military operation is over, the world, the Middle East, Israel, Europe, everyone will have a safer world. "This is a war to end wars, not to begin wars." 8 Israel means business with strikes by Katie Davis, Chief Foreign Reporter (Digital) TZIPI Hotovely's powerful words today prove Israel means business. When I was in Israel just a few months ago, top politicians and military brass were clear - the "head of the snake", Iran, must be stopped. So it came as little surprise when Israel pulled the trigger and blitzed Iran's key nuke facilities last week. Western nations have called for calm - but what is now clear is that Israel has no intention of waiting for diplomatic resolution anymore. Trump has now fanned the flames of speculation that the US will join the military campaign as the door he appeared to leave open to nuclear negotiations starts to close. But Israel appears set on ploughing on with its mission to fully disable Iran's nuke scheme with or without the might of the US. The endgame remains uncertain as sirens screech in both Israel and Iran as missiles hurtle through the sky. What is clear though is the Middle East sits on the knife-edge of all-out war as the conflict threatens to drag in other nations.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Council for a Secure America Polling Confirms Broad Israeli Support for Strike on Iranian Nuclear Facilities
WASHINGTON, June 16, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The Council for a Secure America (CSA) today released updated findings from its public opinion research in Israel. The polling reveals overwhelming support among Israeli voters for military strikes targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure. View the full polling results here. "CSA polling reaffirms the Israeli public's broad support for recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities," said Jennifer Sutton, executive director of the Council for a Secure America. "These results reflect voters' deep concern for Israel's national security and their strong opposition to allowing Iran's terror regime to acquire nuclear weapons that could threaten Israel's existence." The Israeli survey found that 79% of voters support a military strike to disable Iran's nuclear facilities, while only 7% oppose it and 15% remain undecided. The poll was conducted in Hebrew in Feb. 2–4, 2025, by Panels LTD, a leading Israeli research firm with a track record of over 10,000 completed surveys since 2006. Commissioned by CSA, the survey utilized a weighted socio-demographic sample reflecting age, gender, geography, heritage and religiosity, in accordance with data from the Israeli Bureau of Statistics. The results offer a representative cross-section of Israeli society and capture a range of perspectives on national security, the economy, and the future of the Abraham Accords. "The data further underscores the urgency of a strong U.S.-Israel partnership in countering terrorism and maintaining regional stability," said Sutton. "Israelis understand that Iran and its proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis pose a direct threat not only to Israel, but also to the United States and our Western allies." The Council for a Secure America is a non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)3 organization focused on educating on the critical importance of the US-Israel relationship, energy security, and the role that the Abraham Accords play in bolstering America's national security. mutual national security interests. CSA regularly conducts briefings, educational symposia, and research on the benefits of energy security and the reasons it is in the United States' best interest to maintain a strong alliance with Israel. Since October 7th, CSA has compiled and released a constantly updated, open-source, and hyperlinked report on the Israel-Hamas war—the only report of its kind. View original content: SOURCE Council for a Secure America Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why it will be hard for Trump to stay out of the conflict with Iran
President Donald Trump is desperate not to fight a war with Iran. But can he really avoid it? Compelling national security arguments and domestic political considerations mean it makes sense to stop short of direct US offensive operations in the long-dreaded conflict that Israel describes as a matter of preserving its own existence. But powerful forces could suck America deeper into the conflict than its current role in helping to shield Israel from Iran's deadly rain of missiles and drones. CNN reported that over the weekend, Trump rejected an Israeli plan to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to two sources. But some of this is out of Trump's hands. Should Iran's battered regime decide it has nothing to lose and attack US bases and personnel in the region, or US targets across the globe, Washington will be forced to respond hard to preserve credibility and deterrence. Another possibility is that Tehran could create duress on Trump to rein in Israel by attacking international shipping in the Gulf or Red Sea and bring on a global energy crisis. Pressure is also mounting on Trump from inside his own party for action that only the United States could carry out — a mission to destroy Iran's subterranean site at Fordow, which is believed to be beyond Israel's airborne capabilities. The logic of such a strike would be that Iran is now uniquely vulnerable, and a better chance may never come for the US to destroy the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon. CNN's White House team has reported that the president is deeply skeptical about throwing the United States into the fray. Such a move would be fraught with danger. It could lead to the expansion of the conflict beyond its current belligerents and lead to a grueling open-ended war with no clear endgame. If there is one lesson from the early 21st century, it's that war objectives and analyses of the Middle East drawn up in Washington almost always turn out disastrously wrong. The idea that Iran's brutal clerical regime could fall might be attractive. But the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the civil war in Syria show that Middle East nations can simply splinter when power vacuums open. A US intervention would also widen deep strains in Trump's political base and dismantle a core principle of his 'America first' movement: that the United States should stay out of foreign quagmires after more than a decade of pain in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is only a few weeks, after all, since the president set out a new vision for the Middle East and American involvement. 'The so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,' Trump said in a major speech in Saudi Arabia in May. 'A new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts and tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together — not bombing each other out of existence.' A new American war is utterly incompatible with such a vision. Still, hawks in Washington might argue that Trump has a unique opportunity to remove the major impediment to his vision by eradicating Iran's path to a nuclear weapon or even contributing to the toppling of its theocratic leadership. Presidents have often written in their memoirs about momentous and agonizing choices to deploy troops in foreign wars. Sometimes, however, a decision not to rush in even when it appears tempting requires as much courage. Dilemmas like the one now facing Trump typically come with negative outcomes either way. Political heat is already mounting on the president to come off the sidelines even as the United States made clear that Israel's decision to launch major attacks against Iran is its alone and that Washington's forces have no offensive involvement. One of the complicating factors for Trump is that while Israel's attacks seem to have been successful in taking out top military leaders and nuclear scientists, it remains unclear whether Israel has the capacity to eradicate Iran's nuclear program itself. Former Vice President Mike Pence said on 'State of the Union' Sunday that if Israel's attack doesn't somehow convince Iran to make major concessions in Trump's diplomatic attempt to end its nuclear program, then the United States should be prepared to join the conflict. 'Now, if the Iranians want to stand down, I think the president's made it clear he's willing to enter into negotiations. But there can be no nuclear program of any kind, no enrichment program of any kind,' Pence told CNN's Dana Bash. 'And at the end of the day, if Israel needs our help to ensure that the Iranian nuclear program is destroyed once and for all, the United States of America needs to be prepared to do it, because this is about protecting our most cherished ally.' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham argued the worst possible outcome of a conflict between Israel and Iran would be for Tehran's nuclear capabilities — which it has long denied are designed to build a bomb — to remain. 'If diplomacy is not successful, and we are left with the option of force, I would urge President Trump to go all in to make sure that, when this operation is over, there's nothing left standing in Iran regarding their nuclear program,' Graham, a key Trump ally, said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'If that means providing bombs, provide bombs. If that means flying with Israel, fly with Israel.' These calculations are difficult enough. But Trump also faces a complex domestic political scenario that is the result of his own transformation of the GOP into a more isolationist party. This means he faces a different political scenario than the one before President George W. Bush when he went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of the loudest voices on the right, including Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, have already warned Trump against fracturing trust with the MAGA base by diving into a new Middle East war. The president has always been extremely careful with his own complex coalition. He's loath to take steps that annoy his voters. One example was his turnaround last week in halting deportation sweeps against agricultural workers — partly to avoid angering farmers and employers in the rural heartlands where he draws much of his support. Trump's preoccupation with the political costs was evident in a conversation with journalist Michael Scherer of The Atlantic on Sunday. 'Well, considering that I'm the one that developed 'America first,' and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one that decides that,' Trump told Scherer. 'For those people who say they want peace — you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon — that's not peace.' The president appeared to be rehearsing an argument for his base that he'd have to use if he joined Israeli action. It's fascinating to watch him wrestling with a conundrum between national security arguments that would face any conventional American president and the sectors of the political movement that lifted him to power. He doesn't seem absolutely convinced yet by his own argument, perhaps because, as Kirk pointed out, younger male voters who flocked to his reelection campaign last year do not want to join a 'quagmire' in the Middle East. This is hardly where Trump hoped to be early in his presidency — one reason he appeared so bullish even as recently as this month about his effort to force Iran to agree a deal to peacefully end its nuclear program. Trump started his second term vowing to be a peacemaker. But five months in, two major wars raging when he took office are worse and the dangerous new conflict with Iran promises the greatest test of 'America first' restraint. Trump's authority has been flouted by three key leaders: Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And his 'art of the deal' approach to foreign policy is a failure. Putin has ignored Trump's efforts to end the Ukraine war. Xi has twice forced the US leader to fold in their trade war. And Netanyahu's decision to launch the conflict with Iran that American presidents have long sought to avoid appears to have scuttled Trump's Iran diplomacy — and is based on a bet that no American president could afford not to defend Israel even if he differed with its decisions. At home, presidents must create public trust for their decisions to go to war. Here, Trump may struggle since he's alienated millions of people with his searing approach to affairs at home. This includes his decision to deploy the military in California amid anti-ICE protests last week and warnings he plans to use troops everywhere. Trump's second term has already belied the notion that the weight of his personality, supposed respect for him among foreign adversaries, and what aides see as an almost magical dealmaking ability would change the world. The promised rush of trade deals shaken loose by his tariffs, for example, has not materialized. Trump's first peacemaking foray — in Gaza — failed. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are now facing starvation as Israel's pounding of the Strip, triggered by Hamas' attacks in October 2023, continues. The president's effort to end the Ukraine war never went anywhere. The conflict widened. It spread into Russia with Ukrainian raids on Russian bases that prompted Putin to launch vicious attacks on civilians in Kyiv and elsewhere. The White House made it known that Trump was getting frustrated with the Russian leader and set a two-week deadline to consider tougher sanctions on Moscow. But nothing revealed the risible nature of that spin and Trump's biased attitude to the war more than his excitement on Saturday that Putin had called to wish him a happy birthday. Events have overtaken Trump's 'American first' reticence to get involved abroad and exposed the shallowness of his statesmanship. Worsening crises may offer a preview of a world that becomes more volatile in the absence of steady and constant American leadership. Trump's increasingly brittle domestic political grounding and his already questionable authority internationally will only complicate his dilemmas. In many ways the Iran conflict is the kind of international crisis with no easy answers that he avoided in his first term. Now it could define his second.
CNN
5 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Why it will be hard for Trump to stay out of the conflict with Iran
President Donald Trump is desperate not to fight a war with Iran. But can he really avoid it? Compelling national security arguments and domestic political considerations mean it makes sense to stop short of direct US offensive operations in the long-dreaded conflict that Israel describes as a matter of preserving its own existence. But powerful forces could suck America deeper into the conflict than its current role in helping to shield Israel from Iran's deadly rain of missiles and drones. CNN reported that over the weekend, Trump rejected an Israeli plan to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to two sources. But some of this is out of Trump's hands. Should Iran's battered regime decide it has nothing to lose and attack US bases and personnel in the region, or US targets across the globe, Washington will be forced to respond hard to preserve credibility and deterrence. Another possibility is that Tehran could create duress on Trump to rein in Israel by attacking international shipping in the Gulf or Red Sea and bring on a global energy crisis. Pressure is also mounting on Trump from inside his own party for action that only the United States could carry out — a mission to destroy Iran's subterranean site at Fordow, which is believed to be beyond Israel's airborne capabilities. The logic of such a strike would be that Iran is now uniquely vulnerable, and a better chance may never come for the US to destroy the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon. CNN's White House team has reported that the president is deeply skeptical about throwing the United States into the fray. Such a move would be fraught with danger. It could lead to the expansion of the conflict beyond its current belligerents and lead to a grueling open-ended war with no clear endgame. If there is one lesson from the early 21st century, it's that war objectives and analyses of the Middle East drawn up in Washington almost always turn out disastrously wrong. The idea that Iran's brutal clerical regime could fall might be attractive. But the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the civil war in Syria show that Middle East nations can simply splinter when power vacuums open. A US intervention would also widen deep strains in Trump's political base and dismantle a core principle of his 'America first' movement: that the United States should stay out of foreign quagmires after more than a decade of pain in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is only a few weeks, after all, since the president set out a new vision for the Middle East and American involvement. 'The so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,' Trump said in a major speech in Saudi Arabia in May. 'A new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts and tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together — not bombing each other out of existence.' A new American war is utterly incompatible with such a vision. Still, hawks in Washington might argue that Trump has a unique opportunity to remove the major impediment to his vision by eradicating Iran's path to a nuclear weapon or even contributing to the toppling of its theocratic leadership. Presidents have often written in their memoirs about momentous and agonizing choices to deploy troops in foreign wars. Sometimes, however, a decision not to rush in even when it appears tempting requires as much courage. Dilemmas like the one now facing Trump typically come with negative outcomes either way. Political heat is already mounting on the president to come off the sidelines even as the United States made clear that Israel's decision to launch major attacks against Iran is its alone and that Washington's forces have no offensive involvement. One of the complicating factors for Trump is that while Israel's attacks seem to have been successful in taking out top military leaders and nuclear scientists, it remains unclear whether Israel has the capacity to eradicate Iran's nuclear program itself. Former Vice President Mike Pence said on 'State of the Union' Sunday that if Israel's attack doesn't somehow convince Iran to make major concessions in Trump's diplomatic attempt to end its nuclear program, then the United States should be prepared to join the conflict. 'Now, if the Iranians want to stand down, I think the president's made it clear he's willing to enter into negotiations. But there can be no nuclear program of any kind, no enrichment program of any kind,' Pence told CNN's Dana Bash. 'And at the end of the day, if Israel needs our help to ensure that the Iranian nuclear program is destroyed once and for all, the United States of America needs to be prepared to do it, because this is about protecting our most cherished ally.' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham argued the worst possible outcome of a conflict between Israel and Iran would be for Tehran's nuclear capabilities — which it has long denied are designed to build a bomb — to remain. 'If diplomacy is not successful, and we are left with the option of force, I would urge President Trump to go all in to make sure that, when this operation is over, there's nothing left standing in Iran regarding their nuclear program,' Graham, a key Trump ally, said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'If that means providing bombs, provide bombs. If that means flying with Israel, fly with Israel.' These calculations are difficult enough. But Trump also faces a complex domestic political scenario that is the result of his own transformation of the GOP into a more isolationist party. This means he faces a different political scenario than the one before President George W. Bush when he went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of the loudest voices on the right, including Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, have already warned Trump against fracturing trust with the MAGA base by diving into a new Middle East war. The president has always been extremely careful with his own complex coalition. He's loath to take steps that annoy his voters. One example was his turnaround last week in halting deportation sweeps against agricultural workers — partly to avoid angering farmers and employers in the rural heartlands where he draws much of his support. Trump's preoccupation with the political costs was evident in a conversation with journalist Michael Scherer of The Atlantic on Sunday. 'Well, considering that I'm the one that developed 'America first,' and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one that decides that,' Trump told Scherer. 'For those people who say they want peace — you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon — that's not peace.' The president appeared to be rehearsing an argument for his base that he'd have to use if he joined Israeli action. It's fascinating to watch him wrestling with a conundrum between national security arguments that would face any conventional American president and the sectors of the political movement that lifted him to power. He doesn't seem absolutely convinced yet by his own argument, perhaps because, as Kirk pointed out, younger male voters who flocked to his reelection campaign last year do not want to join a 'quagmire' in the Middle East. This is hardly where Trump hoped to be early in his presidency — one reason he appeared so bullish even as recently as this month about his effort to force Iran to agree a deal to peacefully end its nuclear program. Trump started his second term vowing to be a peacemaker. But five months in, two major wars raging when he took office are worse and the dangerous new conflict with Iran promises the greatest test of 'America first' restraint. Trump's authority has been flouted by three key leaders: Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And his 'art of the deal' approach to foreign policy is a failure. Putin has ignored Trump's efforts to end the Ukraine war. Xi has twice forced the US leader to fold in their trade war. And Netanyahu's decision to launch the conflict with Iran that American presidents have long sought to avoid appears to have scuttled Trump's Iran diplomacy — and is based on a bet that no American president could afford not to defend Israel even if he differed with its decisions. At home, presidents must create public trust for their decisions to go to war. Here, Trump may struggle since he's alienated millions of people with his searing approach to affairs at home. This includes his decision to deploy the military in California amid anti-ICE protests last week and warnings he plans to use troops everywhere. Trump's second term has already belied the notion that the weight of his personality, supposed respect for him among foreign adversaries, and what aides see as an almost magical dealmaking ability would change the world. The promised rush of trade deals shaken loose by his tariffs, for example, has not materialized. Trump's first peacemaking foray — in Gaza — failed. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are now facing starvation as Israel's pounding of the Strip, triggered by Hamas' attacks in October 2023, continues. The president's effort to end the Ukraine war never went anywhere. The conflict widened. It spread into Russia with Ukrainian raids on Russian bases that prompted Putin to launch vicious attacks on civilians in Kyiv and elsewhere. The White House made it known that Trump was getting frustrated with the Russian leader and set a two-week deadline to consider tougher sanctions on Moscow. But nothing revealed the risible nature of that spin and Trump's biased attitude to the war more than his excitement on Saturday that Putin had called to wish him a happy birthday. Events have overtaken Trump's 'American first' reticence to get involved abroad and exposed the shallowness of his statesmanship. Worsening crises may offer a preview of a world that becomes more volatile in the absence of steady and constant American leadership. Trump's increasingly brittle domestic political grounding and his already questionable authority internationally will only complicate his dilemmas. In many ways the Iran conflict is the kind of international crisis with no easy answers that he avoided in his first term. Now it could define his second.
