Has Trump approved Israel’s attack on Iran and the United States prepare for war? | News Israel-Iran Conflict

As the conflict between Iran and Israel degenerateThe administration of the American president Donald Trump offers mixed signals as to whether he still supports a diplomatic solution on the Iranian nuclear program.

In public, he made a negotiated agreement and American and Iranian negotiators had planned to meet again this week. As recently as Thursday, Trump insisted In a social article of truth: “We remain attached to a diplomatic resolution.”

But 2 p.m. later when Israel began his attacks on Iran, Trump published that He had given Iran a deadline of 60 days to conclude an agreement – and that the deadline had been adopted. Trump was on Sunday insisted that “Israel and Iran should conclude an agreement” and they would do it with its aid.

Monday while Trump was preparing to leave the summit of the seven group in Canada, his warnings became more worrying: he poster That Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and “everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” The American president then denied speculations according to which he had returned to Washington, DC, to negotiate a cease-fire, note That it was for something “much bigger than that”.

Trump’s ambiguous statements have fueled the debate between analysts on the real extent of the United States participation and intentions in the Israeli-Iranian conflict.

Debate Trump’s wink and a sign of the head

Trump denied any involvement of the United States on strikes. “The United States had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight”, ” He wrote Sunday.

Kelsey Davenport, director of non-proliferation policy at the US Based Control Association, said Trump’s messaging was clear. “I think that President Trump was very clear in opposition to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was taking place. And reports suggest that he has rejected (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu,” she said.

What is more likely, said Davenport is that “Israel feared that diplomacy will succeed, that it would mean an agreement” and “that it did not (that) correspond to its interests and objectives concerning Iran”.

Richard Nephew, professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, agreed, affirming that it was Trump’s constant march to an agreement that disturbed Israel.

“I think it is this consistency that is actually the thing that is the problem,” Nephew said, who was director of Iran at the National US Security Council from 2011 to 2013 under the president of the time, Barack Obama.

But Ali Ansari, professor of Iranian history at St Andrews University in Scotland, did not agree.

“The United States was aware. … Even if the specific timing surprised them, it had to be aware, so a wink is right,” he told Al Jazeera.

“At the same time, the point of view of the United States is that Israel must take the lead and should really do it alone,” he said.

Could Trump be sucked in the conflict?

Israel would have destroyed the section above the ground of the Iranian uranium enrichment installations in Natanz. The installation has enriched uranium at 60% purity – well above 3.67 required percentage For nuclear energy but below the 90% purity necessary for an atomic bomb. The loss of power in Natanz following the Israeli strike may also have damaged the underground enrichment section in Natanz, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

But in the assessment of IAEA, Israel has not damaged the other enrichment factory of Iranium from Iran in Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain and also enriches uranium at 60% purity.

“It is likely that Israel would need American support if he really wanted to penetrate some of these underground installations,” said Davenport, highlighting the largest American conventional bomb, the massive massive penetrator of 13,600 kg (30,000 lb).

“(With) repeated strikes with this ammunition, you could probably damage or destroy some of these facilities,” said Davenport, noting that Washington “has not transferred this bomb to Israel”.

Barbara Slavin, a distinguished scholarship holder at the Stimson Center, a reflection group based in the United States, also said to Al Jazeera That Israel would need American weapons to complete its mission declared to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

The nephew, for his part, has not reduced the chances that this happens.

“We know that (Trump) likes to be on the side of the winners.

On Friday, the United States carried out a large number of air refusal aircraft in the Middle East and ordered the USS Nimitz aircraft carriers to sail. On Tuesday, he announced that he was sending more war planes to the region.

Ansari has agreed that the initial success of Israel’s attacks could mean that “Trump is tempted to join him just to get part of glory”, but he thinks that it could force Iran to withdraw.

“It may well be that the United States joins an attack on Fordow, although I think that even the real threat of an American attack will bring Iranians to the table,” said Ansari. “They can concede – with honor – in the United States; They cannot in Israel, although they have no choice. ”

Beware of American involvement, United States Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution of war powers on Monday which would force the American Congress to authorize any military action against Iran.

“It is not in our interest in national security to enter a war with Iran unless this war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States,” said Kaine.

Diplomacy vs force

Obama did not think that a military solution was attractive or achievable for Iran’s nuclear program, and he opted for a diplomatic process which led to the Complete Complete Action Plan (JCPOA) in 2015. This agreement provided for EAEA to monitor all Iran’s nuclear activities to ensure that the enrichment of uranium has only reached the levels required for energy production.

According to Nephew and Davenport, Trump indirectly landed the flames of the military option when he withdrew the United States from JCPOA as president in 2018 at the request of Israel.

Two years later, Iran said that it would enrich uranium with a 4.5% purity, and in 2021, it refined it to 20% of purity. In 2023, the IAEA said that it had found Uranium particles in Fordow enriched at 83.7% purity.

Trump did not offer any alternative to the JCPOA at his first presidential term, and President Joe Biden did not have after him.

“The adjustment (the JCPOA) on fire was a direct contribution to the place where we are today,” said Nephew. The search for a military path instead of a diplomatic program to reduce a nuclear program “contributes to a path of proliferation”, he said: “Because the countries say:” The only way I can protect myself is if I go down on this path “.” »»

Davenport, an expert in nuclear and missile programs from Iran and North Korea, said that even the regime change in Tehran that Netanyahu had asked would not solve the problem.

“The change of regime is not an assured non-proliferation strategy,” she said. “We don’t know what was going to happen in Iran if this diet fell. If it was military control, nuclear weapons could be more likely. But even if it was a more open democratic government, democracies also choose to build nuclear weapons. ”