What are the options for Trump to deal with Iran?

President Trump’s comments on the Israel-Iran conflict were separated from his full support for Israel’s strike to estrange himself from them and then back.

As the battle itself escalates, his ambiguity increases the sense of uncertainty.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attack was “fully coordinated” with the United States.

So, what factors make Trump weigh, and what is his choice now?

When Israeli missiles hit Tehran on Thursday, Trump threatened Iran’s leaders with a “brutier” attack from Israeli allies armed with U.S. bombs.

We know Trump’s ultimate goal. He said Iran, like Netanyahu, cannot have a nuclear bomb.

Crucially, he said his preferred choice (unlike Netanyahu) was through a deal between the United States and Iran (a route also reflects his self-proclaimed image as a world-class trader and his desire to re-win the Nobel Peace Prize).

But he made equations on how to get there, sometimes leaning towards the threat of force, while other times pushing diplomacy. Last week, he even said in the same breath that Israeli attacks on Iran would help reach a deal that would otherwise be “boasting”.

After the facts, his supporters sometimes portray his unpredictability, which is strategic – the so-called “madman” diplomatic theory. This theory has been used before to describe Trump’s negotiation strategy and suggests intentional uncertainty or unpredictability of escalation efforts to force opponents (even Trump’s case) to comply. This is attributed to some Cold War practices by President Richard Nixon.

Some Trump’s advisers and supporters support the “maximum pressure” side of the madman theory in terms of his attitude towards Iran. They believe that threats will ultimately prevail because they believe Iran does not take negotiations seriously (even in 2015, the country signed an Obama-led nuclear deal, and Trump later withdrew).

Netanyahu has put ongoing pressure on Trump to put pressure along the military rather than diplomatic roads, and the U.S. president may see the need to pay for his threat of better war against the Tehran leadership.

Israel may also work hard behind the scenes to participate in the U.S. participation because it sees it accomplished the work. The United States has a Bunker bomb, Israel believes that it can destroy Iran’s underground uranium enrichment sites in Forto.

As the battle escalates, so does the pressure on Trump from the hawkish camp of Congress Republican Hawkish of Groment of Gongress, who have long called for regime change in Iran.

Trump will also see the argument that it may force the Iranians to negotiate with him with their now weaker hands. But the fact remains that the Iranians are already on that table as the sixth round of negotiations with Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff was planned in Oman Sunday.

Negotiations are now abandoned.

So far, Trump reiterated that the United States has not participated in the Israeli attack.

Upgrades bring huge Trump-defined risks. U.S. Navy destroyers and ground missile batteries are already helping Israel defend against Iran’s retaliation.

Some Trump’s advisers on the National Security Council may warn him to do anything that could increase the intensity of Israel’s attack on Iran, especially in the defense of some Iranian missiles violating Israeli US, to have a fatal effect.

Netanyahu now argues that the goal against Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei will end, rather than escalate, conflict.

But an anonymous official informed some news outlets over the weekend that Trump clearly expressed his opposition to such a move.

One of the biggest political factors that Trump has played in his mind is his domestic support.

Most Republicans in Congress remained firmly back to Israel, including ongoing American weapons to the country. Many people have voices on Israel’s attack on Iran.

But there are key voices in Trump’s Maga movement, now completely rejecting support for Israel’s traditional “Ironclad” .

Over the past few days, they asked why the United States risked being drawn to the Middle East war, given Trump’s “America First” foreign policy commitment.

Pro-Trump reporter Tucker Carlson Written sting criticism On Friday, the government’s statement was not involved, and this is not true, and the United States should “lower Israel.”

He suggested that Mr. Netanyahu’s approach to action “and his desire to war the government” would drag down the U.S. military to fight on his behalf.

“Participating in it will be the middle finger on the faces of millions of voters who voted in hopes of creating a government that ultimately puts the United States first,” Carlson wrote.

Similarly, US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a firm Trump loyalist Posted on X That’s: “Anyone who gets America fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not the United States/Magazine.”

This represents Trump’s vulnerability.

This added pressure to him to distance him from the US and Israeli offense, at least in public, with signs that he had responded.

The weekend magazine debate coincided with his posting on social media, with Russian President Putin calling for an end to the war. By Sunday, he said Iran and Israel should reach an agreement, adding: “The United States has nothing to do with the attack on Iran.”

Iran has threatened to attack our bases in the region, and if so, Washington assists Israel in its defense.

The risk of any U.S. casualties could see the Marg isolationist argument multiplied, which in turn might increase pressure on Trump to back down and urge Mr. Netanyahu to bring the offensive end to the swifter end.