President Donald Trump is facing a serious dilemma regarding Israel and Iran. He stands for three things that may soon come into direct conflict with each other. He is, above all, America-First, but he is also a self-proclaimed crusader for peace and a transactional, pragmatic chief executive. That first identifying trait suggests Trump will protect American interests at all costs, eschewing the nation-building of previous presidents. The second translates to avoiding another foreign war, this time in Iran. The third calls for a pragmatic, realistic assessment of Iran’s ongoing threat to US national security and the ripe opportunity before him to eliminate it once and for all.
Voices From All Sides
How will the 47th president reconcile these competing visions? What makes it a particularly wrenching choice for Trump is that he is hearing compelling arguments from opposite directions. MAGA purists like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson argue that involving ourselves in another war in the Middle East would be a certain disaster along the lines of Iraq and Afghanistan. But conservative hawks such as Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argue that all the ducks are in a row at this moment in time to take down a rogue regime that has for decades been calling for death to Israel and America.
The middle ground would be for the president to continue his current strategic ambiguity, fully supporting Israel’s efforts to dismantle the regime in Tehran without committing to direct American military involvement. But the Israelis do not appear to have the capacity to take down Iran’s most fortified uranium enrichment plant at Fordow without the “bunker busters” that only the US military possesses. If that facility remains intact, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may well believe he can withstand the ongoing Israeli offensive and eventually rebuild his nuclear program, which has been severely impacted by a barrage of air strikes.
While Trump is hearing voices from all sides, “I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” he said. “That’s it. I’m not looking long term, short term.” The president certainly realizes the opportunity before him, but he is also deeply committed to avoiding direct involvement in another foreign war, an issue he has consistently hammered home over his decade in politics. The White House said on Thursday that Trump will decide what to do in the next two weeks, allowing him more time to continue monitoring and assessing Israel’s progress in dismantling Iran’s nuclear operations. In the meantime, American involvement will continue to be strictly defensive, assisting in the interception of Iranian missiles aimed at Israel.
Iran as an Existential Threat
The decision facing Trump, which could well be a defining factor in his presidency, can be viewed in a number of ways. Polling indicates that an overwhelming majority of Americans view Iran as a serious threat to national security and thus would be supportive of direct US action, at least initially. But many US allies are reportedly urging the president to stay out of the fight, fearing that the Iranians could well retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, impeding the flow of oil across the world.
Others reason that a strike by bunker-busting American MOABs (Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb) means no US troops would need to be deployed on the ground, especially since Israel is now in control of Iranian airspace. “America might just drop a few MOAB’s on Fordow, destroy the last nuclear asset, and then leave,” David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador to Israel during his first term, told CNN. Indeed, a US airstrike does not automatically translate into a complete US intervention in a foreign war.
The president evidently still believes Iran could return to the bargaining table, seeking a diplomatic solution. But how likely is that when Iran’s only leverage, the one thing that can keep its enemies at bay, is its nuclear program? The regime in Tehran has not budged an inch on voluntarily shutting it down, and there are no indications that they are open to changing their minds.
Everything now appears to be in place for the commander-in-chief to eventually launch an offensive. American warships and refueling tankers have been deployed to the region this week, along with a dozen F-16 fighter jets. But this does not necessarily mean Trump will choose to join the Israeli offensive, only that the weapons of war will be ready to go if he does decide to use them. It is also possible that the Israelis could launch their own high-stakes ground operation on Fordow.
The ultimate question surrounding the president’s decision regards the end game. Is his ambition limited to terminating Iran’s nuclear program, or does he hope to dismantle the entire Iranian regime? From Vietnam to Iraq, this country has harrowing memories of wars aimed at regime change. This is why the smart move might be to strike Fordow from the air but let the Iranian people on the ground decide whether they will move to overthrow the mullahs or leave them in charge. Judging by the exodus out of Tehran recently in the wake of Israeli airstrikes, it seems the Iranian people may well have had enough of their wildly unpopular and repressive fundamentalist government. It should ultimately be up to ordinary Iranians to determine the final disposition of a regime that has terrorized them, the entire Middle East, and the US for almost half a century.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
