Trump faces three excruciating choices to end a war only he can end

Sydney Morning Herald

8 hours ago

The German foreign minister has offered, alongside Britain and France, to negotiate with the Iranians. But America would still have to play a central role in the talks. No one else could assure both Israel and Iran that an agreement would stick. If it is serious about a deal, it will need to be a more competent negotiator this time around. Steve Witkoff, the US president's Middle East envoy, managed just five meetings with Iran in two months, while juggling a portfolio that also included the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. He also scorned help from American allies (a European diplomat says he received more detailed readouts on the talks from Iran than from America).
Loading
Would America join the war?
If Trump is not serious about diplomacy, his second choice is whether America should join the war. Satellite imagery suggests that Israel has destroyed the so-called 'pilot-fuel enrichment plant' at Natanz, an above-ground facility where Iran enriched uranium to 60 per cent, a small step below weapons-grade.
But it has yet to damage the enrichment facility at Fordow, which is dug into the side of a mountain, too deep for Israeli ordnance to reach. Israel could damage the entrances and ventilation shafts, in effect entombing the facility for a time. It would rather enlist help from America, which has specialised bombs capable of burrowing deep underground. It has asked Trump to join strikes on Fordow (he has not yet agreed).
In the most optimistic scenario, those sorties would both cripple the facility and spook Iran into submitting to a deal. Reality is rarely so tidy, however.
Iran may fear that strikes on Fordow are merely the opening act in a broader campaign to topple the regime. That could lead it to retaliate against America or its allies in the region. Iran has so far refrained from such actions, fearing they would draw America into the war; if America were already involved, though, Iran may feel it had nothing to lose.
Some of Trump's supporters in Washington, and some analysts in Israel, suspect Netanyahu has such a scenario in mind. When the war began, after all, Israel said it only needed America's permission. Now it wants America to join a limited military campaign – one that could easily morph into something bigger.
The prime minister seems increasingly fixated on toppling Iran's regime. In a statement addressed to the people of Iran on June 13, he urged them to 'stand up' against their rulers. Two days later, in an interview with Fox News, he was asked if regime change was Israel's goal.
'It could certainly be the result, because the Iran regime is very weak,' Netanyahu replied. Several of Trump's advisers have urged him not to approve American strikes, fearing it would become an open-ended campaign.
Loading
The final option
That points to Trump's third choice. Israeli leaders like to say that their country defends itself by itself. But it relies on America to protect it against Iranian ballistic missiles, to share intelligence and to resupply its army. If Trump stays out of the war, and if he declines to pursue serious diplomacy – or if his efforts are aimless and futile, a hallmark of his administration – he will have to decide how much continued support to give Israel.
He could urge Israel to end the war anyway. Or he could allow it to continue, much as he has done in Gaza since March, when Israel abandoned a ceasefire there. Israel could probably continue its strikes in Iran for weeks, especially if Iran runs short of the ballistic missiles it uses to counter-attack. Would it eventually declare victory? Or would it keep bombing and hope it could destabilise the regime? And if Iran could no longer effectively strike back at Israel, would it widen the war to neighbouring countries?