Donald Trump’s strategy for Iran

Last week, Israel began a widespread bombing campaign against Iran, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahuclaiming to be an attempt to eradicate the country’s nuclear program. Iran has launched missiles, but Israel’s military advantage is obvious: it has damaged nuclear sites and energy facilities across the country and assassinated key figures in Iran’s military leadership. president Donald TrumpHe has been saying for months that he wanted to sign a nuclear deal with Iran, which he withdrew from the Barack Obama administration in 2018, but still provides significant military and rhetorical support for Israel’s current campaign. Although he seems reluctant to support the Israeli attack at first, he is now repeatedly threatening Iran and its supreme leader and calling for the evacuation of Tehran. He noted that the United States may be officially caught in conflict, perhaps in order to destroy Iran’s Fudo fuel-enriched plant, which is only seen as reachable by U.S. weapons.

To weigh this possibility, and to reflect on the role of the United States in the conflict, I recently had a telephone conversation with Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. He previously worked at the State Department and played a decades-long role in the Middle East peace talks, most notably at the end of the Clinton administration. In our conversation, edited for a long and clear time, we discuss why Trump decided to support Israel’s war against Iran, the conflict in Iran reveals what is about U.S.-Israel relations, and why people continue to misunderstand Trump’s attitude toward foreign policy.

So far, what do you know about how the Trump administration is involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran?

I think this reflects a president who basically doesn’t want a major conflict and doesn’t want the United States to participate in a major conflict, but hasn’t tried or found a way to get rid of the conflict or reduce U.S. interventions. That was his dilemma. We have the F-35. We have the AEGIS missile system. We have patriots. He provided great political leeway for the Israelites. He defeated many Magazine Think that supportive Israeli enthusiasts throw good money in bad situations. Now, he even provides verbal support.

So, if he doesn’t want the United States to participate, why should he do these things?

This is always a question for Donald Trump, how do I think? Am I playing? Am I considered weak? Am I overcommitting or overstateing the possibility of a deal with Iran? I think he is trying to achieve virtue out of necessity. But whenever Trump is told that the Israelis are about to strike, he has the ability, personality and ability to tell Netanyahu to wait and wait and at least take time.

this era ReportOn Tuesday, the government is essentially boxing, and Netanyahu will conduct a military attack on Iran. So, to some extent, they have to keep moving forward because they can’t stop it. You seem to be saying that, in fact, they do have some power.

Let me tell you why I think so. This is not a popular view, nor is it a view that many people have. Donald Trump has done things within and within Israel over the past six weeks, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, no Republican president and Democratic president I never worked for. He suffered two of the three basic political and political laws that ruled the relationship between the United States and Israel. One is not sunlight. In March, he authorized his hostage negotiators to engage in dialogue with Hamas, who had killed American citizens and were responsible for the death of the Israeli-U.S. dual nationals. He reached an agreement with Houthis without the knowledge of the Israeli Prime Minister, implicitly that we will cease fire as long as you do not attack our naval assets. He said nothing about Israel’s drones and ballistic missiles. Then, amid Netanyahu’s dissent, he lifted sanctions on Syria’s new president. He summoned Netanyahu from Budapest to Washington in April. It is presumed that the Prime Minister believes he is negotiating to lower tariffs. Then, Trump announced that the Israeli Prime Minister was standing next to him, and he now has direct negotiations with Iran. No other U.S. president will do this. Therefore, this is a discarded policy of time.

The second is the imperfect perspective of political costs or consequences. If the Democratic president did what I just confirmed, someone would ask them to implode each. Trump is more independent from the current Israeli prime minister and has a much larger tax rate than any U.S. president. This posture goes back to the first Trump term when he thought Netanyahu was using him. He has no identical emotional commitment to the security of Israel, the people of Israel, Joe Biden owns. Israel was a means of ending for him.

The third gravity politics that dominates this relationship is a disgust of serious and persistent stress. Despite violating the first two, he would not or could not finish third. On issues that are extremely important to Israel, involving U.S. stocks and interests and potential American life, he can’t let himself say, “Look, you know, I know you know you have to do what you want to do, but I can’t do more time there. I need more time.” I need more time. “He probably didn’t say “Attaboy” and light it up green, but he obviously didn’t refuse.

When I read era I think, well, this is something we’ve seen before: the U.S. government leaked that they were dumped into the corner by the Israelis and they had no choice. What you seem to be saying is that Trump and his administration actually have political leeway that other U.S. governments feel they don’t have, and he just doesn’t accept it. So we end up with the same situation we had before, even if this could have been avoided without the same political cost.

Yes, I suggest you counterfactually. Others might say, “Oh, don’t be ridiculous, Aaron. Trump understands Iran is a bad actor. There’s no doubt in his mind.” I don’t buy that because I don’t think he’s committed to Netanyahu. Of course, he doesn’t care about the humanitarian situation of Iranians or Palestinians.

Let me say that. Trump is now managing three U.S.-mediated conflicts: Israel-Iran-Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine. He has no effective strategy, i.e. how to deploy, or even attempt to deploy the U.S. impact or impact on either. He is the situation. He is traded. In the end, he has no strategy. Netanyahu came to him through the plan, he might have questions, but he did not refuse. Once the plan is implemented, he will not make broader concerns or concerns about what he will be like the next day. I think he’s got rid of a serious doubtful person, worried about being poured into a corner, and now, I think he’s reluctantly committed to – OK – OK –

His public comments don’t seem to be unwilling to do so.

Yes, I don’t want to disappear because I think what happened is that he respects success and strength. The Israelites showed success and strength to a very bad actor. So basically saying, “No, give me more time”, he is now considering using American military power with the Israelis. Not only to increase what the Israelis are doing, but also tolerate the Americans to endure the strength and do one thing the Israelis can’t do: one thing the Americans can do: the remote refueling and huge obligation penetrator delivered by the B-2 bomber can be used to follow the Forto reactor in Iran. I bet he didn’t give up on the idea that participation could actually translate into leverage in some way.

He could go to Netanyahu and say, “Look, you know what I just did? We have to think about the next day, you have to stop.” But that’s where I think it breaks down. I think the Iranians will respond. They have thousands of short-range ballistic missiles. Geography is destiny. They have proven in September 2019 that they can attack Saudi oil facilities with cruise missiles and drones. I’m not sure what Iranians will do under asymmetry of power, but there’s a good chance they’ll lower our assets in Iraq, Syria and the Gulf. So that was the next day.