Contributor: How should the U.S. respond to Israel's attack on Iran?
Israel's decision to launch a wide-scale military operation against Iran may have come as a shock to many, but it's something Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been itching to do for more than decade. The question now is whether President Trump will end up sustaining an Israeli bombing campaign that could last for days, if not weeks.
The fact that Israel conducted the operation several days before Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, was scheduled to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi for a sixth round of nuclear talks in Oman wasn't lost on most observers.
Netanyahu hasn't been particularly supportive of the Trump administration's diplomatic outreach to the Iranians and reportedly pressed the White House to green-light joint U.S.-Israeli strikes against Tehran's nuclear facilities last month. Trump demurred, choosing diplomacy instead, but Netanyahu seems never to have believed the talks would result in anything substantial.
Read more: Israel attacks Iran's capital; blasts rock Tehran
Israel's negotiating position has long been entirely maximalist: Every nuclear complex on Iranian soil must be destroyed, and under no circumstances could Iran be left with even a rudimentary uranium enrichment capability. Trump's position isn't as definitive as Netanyahu's. At times, U.S. officials have talked about striking a deal that would allow the Iranians to continue enriching at a low level with strict, comprehensive international oversight. At other times, Trump has declared that Washington wouldn't sign any deal that allowed Iran to enrich at all.
Various proposals have been floated in the months since those negotiations began, including a regional nuclear consortium involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other powers, which could prevent an indigenous Iranian enrichment program but still supply the region with peaceful nuclear energy, and also stem the possibility of an arms race in the Middle East. The Iranians, however, didn't buy into the idea that no enrichment would be permitted on Iranian soil.
Read more: Israel launches withering attack on Iran, spurring retaliation and fears of all-out war
Israel's military attack upends the diplomatic chessboard, such as it is, turning the last few months of U.S.-Iran discussions into empty theater. Trump claims he knew what Israel was up to all along and congratulated Netanyahu on the attack. That alone makes it difficult to imagine Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei authorizing his subordinates to continue discussions with the Americans. Doing so would be a very public act of weakness on Tehran's part.
Even so, the White House still expects Iranian officials to show up for the next round of talks. As Trump argued after the initial Israeli salvo, Iran is in no position to refuse anymore. 'I couldn't get them to a deal in 60 days,' Trump said, referring to the Iranians. 'They were close, they should have done it. Maybe now it will happen.'
In reality, what we are likely to see instead is a collapse of the current diplomatic process and a situation that will be far messier to handle.
Israeli political and military officials have made it abundantly clear that military operations will persist well into next week and perhaps go on even longer than that. The Iranians, in turn, will feel pressure to continue to retaliate with each passing day, whether it's in the form of drones and missiles aimed at Israel's air defenses, terrorist attacks on Western targets or sabotaging cargo vessels in the Persian Gulf. In any case, the Middle East is as close to a full-scale war as it has ever been.
Read more: What to know about Iran's nuclear sites
This is a critical moment for the Trump administration, and how it chooses to act in the hours and days ahead will be the determining factor in whether the United States gets dragged into another regional conflagration or not.
Israel will do what it believes it needs to do to maintain its security. Even assuming Trump would try to pressure Netanyahu into stopping the bombings — the evidence for that scenario is slim — it's hardly guaranteed the Israeli premier would listen. For better or worse, Israel's strategic calculus has changed after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. Netanyahu is now far less risk-adverse than during his previous stints in office.
The United States can only control what it can control. As much as Trump might like to see the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism hammered, he also doesn't want to aid a conflict that could expose tens of thousands of U.S. troops based in the Middle East to imminent risk. Besides, any U.S. involvement in offensive Israeli military operations would be a betrayal of Trump's core supporters and his campaign promises to avoid the fruitless, unending wars. In addition, U.S. offensive involvement would kill any grand diplomatic ambitions Trump may have in the Middle East and nip in the bud the administration's pivot to the Indo-Pacific as China tries to consolidate its power in Asia.
Sometimes, the best response to a dangerous situation is to do nothing. It won't satisfy the more hawkish elements in Washington, but let's hope Trump holds his fire.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel Warns 'Tehran Will Burn' Amid Deadly Missile Strikes
Israeli search and rescue teams conduct operations amid the rubble of a destroyed building after Iranian strikes in Rishon LeZion, Israel, on June 14, 2025. Credit - Mostafa Alkharouf—Getty Images After striking back on Friday night, Iran launched a new wave of strikes toward Israel on Saturday morning, as the two countries continue to exchange deadly missiles. Iran followed through on its vow to retaliate after Israel carried out a 'precise and integrated preemptive strike' against Iranian nuclear facilities, targeting military personnel and scientists. Now, as the attacks escalate, and with fatalities and injuries reported on both sides, Israel has issued a stark warning to Iran. Israel's Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday morning threatened severe consequences if Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei doesn't retreat. 'If Khamenei continues to fire missiles at the Israeli home front, Tehran will burn,' Katz said, after a meeting with leaders of the Israeli military. 'The Iranian dictator is turning Iran's citizens into hostages and creating a reality in which they, especially the residents of Tehran, will pay a heavy price for the criminal attacks on Israeli civilians.' Read More: Israel Gets the War It Wanted The warning comes after Israel reported that at least three people had died and dozens have been injured after Iranian strikes rained down on Tel Aviv and nearby cities. Meanwhile, Iran's U.N. Ambassador reported that over 70 people have been killed and over 300 wounded as a result of the Israeli strikes. The escalation of traded strikes has raised concerns for civilians on both sides. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the 'esteemed people of Iran' directly in a filmed statement on Friday night. 'We are in the midst of one of the largest military operations in history. The Islamic regime that has oppressed you for almost 50 years threatens to destroy our country, Israel,' Netanyahu said. 'The goal of Israel's operation is to prevent the Islamic regime's nuclear and ballistic missile threats.' 'While we achieve our goal, we also pave the way for you to achieve your freedom,' he continued. 'In the past 24 hours, we have destroyed senior military commanders, prominent nuclear scientists, the Islamic regime's most important enrichment facility, and a large part of its ballistic missile arsenal. Another operation is underway' Netanyahu went on to say that the regime in Iran has 'never been so weak' and urged Iranians to use the opportunity to 'stand up' and make their voices heard. Read More: Here Are the Top Iranian Generals and Scientists Targeted and Killed by Israeli Strikes Israel's initial strikes on Iran in the early hours of Friday morning, local time, came amid long-time concerns as to the progression of the country's nuclear capabilities. The United States has been engaged in ongoing talks with Iran, in an effort to make a nuclear deal. Another round of talks between the U.S. and Iran was set to take place in the Sultanate of Oman's capital of Muscat on Sunday, but it remains to be seen if those will go ahead. Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei on Saturday called nuclear talks with the U.S. 'meaningless,' according to state television, amid the current situation with Israel. Read More: Trump Issues Grave Warning to Iran After Israeli Strikes: 'No More Death, No More Destruction' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke out shortly after Israel launched its operative strikes against Iran, announcing that the U.S. were not participants in the military action. 'Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran… Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,' the statement read. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump on Friday issued a grave warning of his own to Iran, urging them to make a nuclear deal before the combat escalated further, which it since has. Detailing how he has long sought to make an agreement with Iran, Trump said: "I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done… Certain Iranian hardliners spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse." Write to Olivia-Anne Cleary at
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No More Student Visas? No Problem.
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Just how mad is Beijing about President Donald Trump's decision to revoke student visas for Chinese nationals? Not as mad as it says, and not as mad as one might expect. Publicly, China's leadership will likely complain that Trump's action is yet another attempt to thwart the country's rise. But in reality, Beijing would probably just as soon keep its smartest kids at home. Late last month, the U.S. State Department announced that it would 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,' and that it would 'enhance scrutiny' of the applications it received in the future. The new visa policy, a spokesperson said, is meant to prevent China from exploiting American universities and stealing intellectual property. A spokesperson for the foreign ministry quickly registered Beijing's objection to the new policy. But when Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke with Trump by phone last week, either he didn't raise the new visa policy or his foreign ministry didn't regard his comments on the matter worth including in its official summary of the call, which suggests that the issue is not a top priority in Beijing's negotiations with Washington. One reason for this underwhelming response may be that re-shoring its university students serves Beijing's current agenda. China first opened to the world in the 1980s; in the decades that followed, securing a Western education for its elite helped the country bring in the technology and skills it needed to escape poverty. China was 'sending people out, learning from other places, finding the best quality wherever it was, and bringing that quality back to China,' Robin Lewis, a consultant for U.S.-China education programs and a former associate dean at Columbia University, told me. Now that period has given way to one of nationalism and self-reliance, which means promoting China's own companies, products, technologies—and universities. [Rose Horowitch: Trump's campaign to scare off foreign students] Xi has consistently stressed the importance of education in sustaining China's rise. His government has invested heavily in China's schools and lavished resources on science and technology programs, with some success. Some of China's top institutions, such as Tsinghua University in Beijing, have gained international recognition as serious competitors in scientific research. China would like to have its own Harvards, rather than sending its elite students to the United States, for political and cultural reasons as well as economic ones. Chinese authorities have long worried that the hundreds of thousands of students it exports to America will absorb undesirable ideas about democracy and civil liberties—and that they will access information about China that is suppressed at home, such as the story of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. In fact, many young Chinese who study in the United States seem to enjoy American freedoms and seek to stay rather than return to serve the motherland. Beijing has tried to deal with this in part by monitoring the activities of its students in the U.S. and attempting to hold them firmly to the party line, including by harassing the families back home of those who stray. Within China, authorities can more easily confine students inside the government's propaganda bubble, which in recent years has become more airtight. Domestic media seek to portray the U.S. as unsafe, especially for Asians, by highlighting incidents of racial discrimination, violence, and disorder. One story published last year by the state news agency Xinhua, under the headline 'Chinese Students' Dreams Turned Into Nightmares at U.S. Doorstep,' tells the harrowing tale of a Chinese student detained and deported at an airport and claims that others had suffered the same fate. China's top spy agency, the Ministry of State Security, warned Chinese students at universities abroad against being recruited as foreign agents, and told of one such unfortunate national who was discovered and punished. Even before Trump's announcement, this climate of mutual distrust had led to a drop-off in Chinese students enrolled in American universities. The number had reached an all-time high during the 2019–20 academic year, topping 372,000, according to the Institute of International Education. But that figure has fallen since—by a quarter, to 277,000, in the 2023–24 academic year. Now India, with more than 331,000 enrolled, sends more students to American institutions than China does. The Trump administration appears to believe that curtailing Chinese access to American technology, money, and, in this case, education will give the U.S. the edge over its closest competitor. In some areas, this might work: Restricting the export of advanced U.S. semiconductor technology to China seems to have helped hold Beijing's chip industry back. So why not do the same with higher education? A case can be made that keeping Chinese students out of some of the world's top research institutions will hold back their skills acquisition and, with it, the country's progress. [Adam Serwer: Trump is wearing America down] In practice, though, the effect of this policy could be hard to gauge. The engineers behind the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which wowed Silicon Valley by developing a competitive chatbot on the cheap, were mainly locally trained. And the skills that Chinese students can't find at home they can seek in any number of places. There may be only so many Harvards, but Chinese students can receive a good education—and a warmer reception—in countries other than the United States. Universities in Japan and Hong Kong are already trying to capitalize on Trump's harassment of international students to lure them. The idea that any American policy can effectively dampen Chinese ambition may be far-fetched. 'People wake up in the morning and it's all about education here. There is nothing more important,' James McGregor, the chair for China at the consulting firm APCO, told me. 'You're going to stop Chinese people from learning the top skills in the world? No. They'll just deploy them somewhere else.' For now, the Trump team can't seem to decide whether it wants to get tough on China or make deals with China, and the new student-visa policy reflects this confusion. 'Chinese students are coming. No problem,' Trump said in a briefing after his call with Xi. 'It's our honor to have them, frankly.' China's leadership surely knows that many Chinese families still aspire to send their young-adult children to American universities. But Beijing is much more single-minded than Washington about the future of relations between the two countries: Xi appears to see Washington as the primary impediment to China's rise, and ties to the U.S. as a vulnerability best eliminated. From that viewpoint, relying on Harvard to train China's most promising students is a national-security risk. That means that Trump may be doing Xi a favor. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tim Walz lets loose in rant-filled talk with liberal think tank
Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz has built a reputation for his off-the-cuff comments. The Democratic Minnesota governor made no exception during a Center for American Progress (CAP) event on Friday morning called, "What's Next: Conversations on the Path Forward." Walz said China might be the voice of "moral authority" following Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders. "Now, who is the voice in the world that can negotiate some type of agreement in this? Who holds the moral authority? Who holds the ability to do that? Because we are not seen as a neutral actor, and we maybe never were," Walz said of the U.S.' role in de-escalating tensions in the Middle East. Tim Walz Hopes It Rains On Trump's Military Parade: 'I'm Just Going To Confess' According to Walz, the U.S. once attempted "to be somewhat of the arbitrator" in those negotiations during the Iran Nuclear Deal, but he said Americans must face the reality that the "neutral actor" with the "moral authority" to lead negotiations in the Middle East "might be the Chinese." Read On The Fox News App Tim Walz Floats China As 'Neutral Actor' With 'Moral Authority' To Negotiate Middle East Peace Walz didn't elaborate on why China would be that world leader. The Minnesota Democrat also admitted he is hoping for rain during President Donald Trump's military parade. "I have never so hoped for rain in my life," Walz said. Trump is hosting a massive Flag Day military parade on Saturday to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are expected to gather in the nation's capital to witness the historic parade, which also coincides with the president's 79th birthday. "This is not Pyongyang on a Saturday," Walz said, referring to the capital of North Korea, which is a communist, totalitarian dictatorship. Walz has joined many Democrats, including those planning to protest on Saturday, in criticizing Trump's military parade by drawing comparisons to China and North Korea's military parades. Trump's military parade on Saturday comes amid escalated conflict in the Middle East, after Israel launched air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders, and Iran responded by launching missiles toward Israeli territory. Walz was ridiculed earlier this year for celebrating Tesla's stock drop as protests raged on, rejecting Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). "On the iPhone, they've got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day — $225 and dropping," Walz said at the time. Walz on Friday said that speaking out against Musk and Tesla "worked" because it started to hurt the billionaire personally. The Democrat, who rose to the national stage as former Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate during her brief 2024 presidential campaign, criticized Trump along his usual attack lines on Friday. Walz said Trump is "incompetent at governing," and America is in a "dangerous time" under Trump's leadership, which he said is "marching towards authoritarianism" following the chaotic incident in which authorities forcibly removed Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., at a Department of Homeland Security press conference on Thursday. The former vice presidential candidate also said he was successful in labeling Trump "weird" during the 2024 presidential campaign. "I thought instead of making him a scary authoritarian wannabe who is incredibly dangerous, which I believe he is, I just thought, what a weird dude doing some of this stuff," Walz said. Walz added he "got a bunch of heat" for "inciting violence because I said we should bully the c--- out of Donald Trump." Earlier this year, the Minnesota governor said Harris chose him as her running mate, in part, because, "I could code talk to White guys watching football, fixing their truck" and "put them at ease," describing himself as the "permission structure" for White men from rural America to vote for Democrats. "I think I'll give you pretty good stuff, but I'll also give you 10% problematic," he added. Walz laughed off criticism over inconsistencies in his background on the 2024 campaign trail, describing himself as a "knucklehead."Original article source: Tim Walz lets loose in rant-filled talk with liberal think tank
