Trump says wants 'real end' to Israel-Iran conflict, not ceasefire
US President Donald Trump said he wants a "real end" to the conflict between Israel and Iran, not just a ceasefire, as the arch foes traded fire for a fifth day on Tuesday.
The escalating clashes saw Israeli warplanes target military sites in Iran, killing a senior commander and drawing retaliatory missile fire from Iran.
Explosions were heard over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem shortly after air raid sirens sounded in many parts of Israel following missile launches from Iran, the Israeli military said.
The air force was "operating to intercept and strike where necessary to eliminate the threat", the military said.
About 20 minutes later, it said people could leave shelters as police reported debris fell in the Tel Aviv area and the fire brigade said it was tackling a blaze in the surrounding area.
The Israeli military said it killed senior Iranian commander Ali Shamdani in an overnight strike on a "command centre in the heart of Tehran", just four days after his predecessor, Golam Ali Rashid, was killed in a similar Israeli attack.
It also said it targeted multiple missile and drone sites in west Iran, including infrastructure, launchers and storage facilities, with black-and-white footage showing some of them exploding.
Despite mounting calls to de-escalate, neither side has backed off from the missile blitz that began Friday, when Israel launched an unprecedented aerial campaign targeting Iranian nuclear and military facilities.
A new wave of Israeli strikes on Tehran -- including a dramatic hit on state television headquarters that the broadcaster said killed three people -- prompted both sides to activate missile defence systems overnight.
A cyberattack on Tuesday crippled Sepah Bank, one of Iran's main state-owned banks, the Fars news agency reported.
- 'Complete give-up' -
Trump said on Tuesday that he wanted a "complete give-up" by Iran in return for peace.
"I'm not looking for a ceasefire, we're looking at better than a ceasefire," he told reporters on the plane home after cutting short his attendance at a Group of Seven summit in Canada.
Trump again warned Iran against targeting US troops and assets in the Middle East, saying "we'll come down so hard, it'd be gloves off".
Trump had earlier issued an extraordinary warning on his Truth Social platform, saying: "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!"
Trump has repeatedly declined to say if the United States would participate in Israeli military action, although he has said Washington was not involved in initial strikes.
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said the United States was deploying "additional capabilities" to the Middle East.
The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz left Southeast Asia Monday, scrapping a planned Vietnam port call, amid reports it was heading to the region.
China accused Trump of "pouring oil" on the conflict.
"Making threats and mounting pressure will not help to promote the de-escalation of the situation, but will only intensify and widen the conflict," said foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun.
After decades of enmity and a prolonged shadow war, Israel launched its surprise air campaign last week, saying it aimed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons -- an ambition Tehran denies.
Iran has responded with multiple missile salvos. The Revolutionary Guards vowed Monday night the attacks would continue "without interruption until dawn".
State television said the Tel Aviv headquarters of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency was among the Guards' targets.
- G7 urges de-escalation -
The escalation has derailed nuclear talks and stoked fears of broader conflict.
At least 24 people have been killed in Israel and hundreds wounded, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office.
Iran said on Sunday that Israeli strikes had killed at least 224 people, including military commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians. It has not issued an updated toll since then.
Netanyahu said Israel was "changing the face of the Middle East, and that can lead to radical changes inside Iran itself".
Iran's ISNA news agency quoted a medical official saying all doctors and nurses had their leave cancelled and were ordered to remain at medical centres.
International calls for calm have mounted.
At the G7 summit, leaders including Trump called Monday for "de-escalation" while stressing Israel had the right to defend itself.
"We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza", G7 leaders said in a joint statement that also affirmed "Iran can never have a nuclear weapon".
The United States and Iran had engaged in several rounds of indirect talks on Tehran's nuclear programme in recent weeks, but Iran said after the start of Israel's campaign that it would not negotiate while under attack.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Monday that "absent a total cessation of military aggression against us, our responses will continue".
"It takes one phone call from Washington to muzzle someone like Netanyahu. That may pave the way for a return to diplomacy," he wrote on X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Trump denies seeking Middle East truce as Israel ramps up attacks
US President Donald Trump reined in speculation about a quick end to the conflict between Israel and Iran, keeping the market on edge about potential crude oil supply disruptions in the Middle East. After leaving the Group of Seven leaders meeting in Canada early, Trump played down the prospect of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran and said he wants 'a real end' to the conflict. He told reporters aboard Air Force One that he wanted Tehran's nuclear program 'wiped out,' according to CBS.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Was Iran really about to build a nuclear bomb?
Sam Hawley: Israel has been ramping up pressure on Donald Trump for the US to join its strikes on Iran. But does the Iranian regime have the nuclear capability? The Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, says it does. Today, nuclear weapons expert Ben Zala from Monash Uni on Iran's nuclear program, and whether Israel really needed to strike now. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Ben, we're watching missiles fly between Israel and Iran, and it really at this point does not look like this will be a short war, does it? Dr Ben Zala: No, unfortunately, I don't think it does. Israel is clearly taking its time in hitting various sites. News report: After weeks of threats, explosions across Iran. Dr Ben Zala: It's rolling this out over a number of days now, even in the initial wave of attacks when it began on Friday. For those of us in the sort of nuclear community who were watching this, there were a number of sites that we were quite surprised that hadn't been hit straight away. They then were hit over the course of the weekend. News report: Smoke rose over the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, the IAEA, saying it had contacted Iranian authorities about radiation levels. Dr Ben Zala: So this is clearly planned to be carried out in waves. This doesn't feel like just a targeted strike on the nuclear program. This really is much wider. Sam Hawley: Yeah, Israel's even hit the state broadcaster in Iran while it was on air. It's targeting deep inside the capital. That's right. As well, isn't it? It's very extensive. Dr Ben Zala: Yeah, it is extensive. And those sort of strikes, as you say, against state TV, against airports, against various military facilities, not just those related or that in principle could be related to the nuclear weapon program, a clandestine program. This really is a very large scale strike. And so this appears to be part of the gambit here that the Israelis are thinking, we know that we can't necessarily wipe out the entirety of the nuclear weapons program if that's what the Iranians were getting close to building. So what we're going to do is actually go one better and see if we overthrow the actual regime. Sam Hawley: And Ben, are we any clearer at this point on what Israel has actually achieved, how much of Iran's nuclear program it's wiped out at this point? Dr Ben Zala: Look, we're not terribly clear on that and we won't be for some time. Of course, the Israelis are making grand claims about having really set back the program by a long way and that they think they've collapsed the underground facility at Natanz, which is an enrichment plant and so forth. What we do know from the satellite images that we can see for ourselves, that certainly the above ground facilities have been very, very extensively damaged. So there was an above ground section at the Natanz site, for example, and you can look at the satellite images before the attack and look at it afterwards and there are just buildings that are no longer there, structures that are blown wide apart. But what we don't know is how extensive has the damage been, how successful have these attacks been on the underground facilities. And these are facilities both at Natanz and also at Fordow, which the Iranians have been digging deep, deep underground and fortifying. They've been putting these under layers and layers and layers of concrete for years. They've been expecting an attack of this kind from Israel at some point. And so they've been preparing the sites to try and withstand as much of an attack as possible. Sam Hawley: And as I understand it, the US is the only nation that has the type of weaponry that can get to some of those bunkers. Dr Ben Zala: That's right. Yeah. What we call bunker busting weapons. So what you would really need is the kind of 20,000, 30,000 pound bombs that only the US has. And so far there doesn't seem to be any indication that the US giving these to Israel to use or allowing them to use it. And the US seems to be completely avoiding being drawn into doing any military strikes themselves. Sam Hawley: Well, Donald Trump says he had nothing to do with the Israeli strikes. He left the G7 summit in Canada early, where world leaders had been discussing the crisis. Donald Trump, US President: Well, I think this, I think Iran basically is at the negotiating table. They want to make a deal. And as soon as I leave here, we're going to be doing something. But I have to leave here. I have this commitment. I have a lot of commitments. I have a commitment to a lot of countries. Sam Hawley: In an interview with ABC America, Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, indicated he does want America to be drawn into this. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli PM: To have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to your cities. Today, it's Tel Aviv. Tomorrow, it's New York. Look, I understand America first. I don't understand America dead. That's what these people want. They chant death to America. Dr Ben Zala: I mean, the best news for Israel would be joint strikes carried out by the Americans and the Israelis, because that means they would have the full force of the American military behind them. That seems unlikely to me for now. If in Iran's response in its retaliation towards Israel, if that in the end broadens out and targets certain American interests in the region, particularly things like military bases or any other military capabilities that are in the region at the time, that could be very difficult for Trump to avoid. Sam Hawley: Let's look, Ben, more deeply at why Israel has attacked now. Israel's Prime Minister says Iran could have made a nuclear bomb in a very short period of time and it posed an existential threat to Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli PM: If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It could be within a few months, less than a year. This is a clear and present danger to Israel's very survival. Sam Hawley: Tell me, does the evidence as far as we know, support that view? Dr Ben Zala: Not as far as we know, no. That's the simple answer. The answer to this is there have been estimates around how close Iran is to building a nuclear weapons program that have been around for years. And according to the Israelis, they've been months away from building the bomb for years now. So the Israeli assessments and estimates are a little hard to take on face value. The best assessments from the expert community, those who follow these issues, but as it were, don't have a dog in the fight, aren't trying to influence policy one way or the other, is somewhere around two to three years is probably a more accurate estimate. They certainly weren't anywhere near having a workable nuclear weapons program in the timeline that Netanyahu was talking about when he said a year or even months. And they certainly didn't have assembled usable weapons ready to go or even close to doing so. Whether, even if they did, that would represent an existential threat to Israel, that really depends on how you feel about the whole issue of nuclear deterrence. I mean, the strange thing in this is that the Israelis are demonstrating to us that they actually don't believe in nuclear deterrence because they have their own nuclear weapons program. They've had it since the late 1960s. It's sort of the world's worst kept secret. Israel neither confirms nor denies the existence of its nuclear weapons program. But thanks to leaks from Israeli scientists and assessments from intelligence agencies from all around the world, we all know that they do. And therefore, if Iran was to be successful in building a nuclear weapons program, if you think nuclear deterrence works, which is presumably why you have a nuclear arsenal in the first place, well, there's no reason to think that the Iranians wouldn't be deterred from using them by an Israeli nuclear retaliation, just like anyone else would. So the idea that Iran getting nuclear weapons suddenly poses an existential threat to Israel is a strange one when you factor into account that Israel itself already has nuclear weapons and has had them for over half a century. Sam Hawley: The US, of course, has worked pretty hard, hasn't it, over many years to strike a deal with Iran to restrict its nuclear program, with varying success, of course. That all fell apart, didn't it, during Trump's first term? He actually tore it up, a nuclear deal, and now he's been trying to negotiate a new one, right? And now that's also fallen apart. But why on earth did Israel act when negotiations were still underway? Dr Ben Zala: Well, I think the key to the timing here is that they allowed the Trump administration to engage in what the Israelis clearly knew and what the rest of us clearly knew was a doomed attempt at trying to restore some kind of diplomatic solution here. Donald Trump, US President: I gave Iran 60 days and they said no. And the 61st you saw what happened. Day 61. So I'm in constant touch. And as I've been saying, I think a deal will be signed or something will happen, but a deal will be signed. And I think Iran is foolish not to sign one. Dr Ben Zala: As you say, the Iranians had already done this. They signed a deal in 2015 with the Obama administration, which put very effective limits on Iran's program. It didn't completely prevent it from developing a secret program or being close-ish to, but it put it a long way back. And it was working very well. And the Iranians were, regardless of how we feel about the regime, were actually abiding by the terms of the deal. And when Trump got into power, he was very opposed to it simply on the grounds that it was an Obama deal. That means that these most recent rounds of talks, when Trump in his second term decided that he wanted to restrike a deal, they were really up against it right from the outset, because you would have to convince the Iranians to come back and trust you again, despite the fact that it was that very administration that had pulled out of the last deal. And now the Israelis can say to the Trump administration, look, we gave you a chance, we allowed the talks to go on, you tried your best, but the Iranians are just throwing it back in your face. We face no decision here. We just have to act now. It gives them an air of legitimacy in their relations with Washington. Sam Hawley: Mm, all right. Well, Ben, as we discussed, Israel is likely to need America to completely wipe out Iran's nuclear program, those bunker busters. What do you think happens next? If Israel can't destroy it completely, this program, would Iran increase the speed of developing, say, a nuclear bomb? Dr Ben Zala: That's certainly one of the options. And I sadly, I think it's probably fairly likely. I would be surprised if Iran remained a signatory to the NPT. In fact, we've already seen Iranian lawmakers overnight putting together a bill for the Iranian parliament to suggest that Iran should withdraw from the nonproliferation treaty. Only one state has done that. That was North Korea. They withdrew in 2003. And then three years later, they tested their first nuclear weapon and have been nuclear armed ever since. That's probably the more likely outcome that I would see Iran going down in the short term. Sam Hawley: Mm, all right. Well, Ben, if Israel actually achieves what it says it wants to, what do you think? Would that actually make the Middle East a safer place in the long run? Dr Ben Zala: Not necessarily. It certainly will make Israel's other neighbours around them think twice about its relationship with Israel. I mean, the reality is Israel's Arab neighbours have been getting closer to Israel, closer but not close to Israel in recent years. But I think we would see other states in the region think very, very carefully about how they manage their relations with Israel, because this has demonstrated that if the Israelis deem you as a threat, you are fair game for a full-scale military attack. It will also shift the power balance in the region somewhat. I mean, this is a good news day for the Saudis, for example, who are no friends of the Iranians and really see themselves as regional rivals to Iran. So this is not the kind of thing that will necessarily bring peace and stability to the region instantly. And we will still have a region in which there is one nuclear-armed state in Israel, and the rest of them are not. And that means that the rest of them can be subject to sort of nuclear blackmail and nuclear coercion, because they don't have that deterrence relationship. There's no parity in their military relations. Sam Hawley: Ben Zala is a senior lecturer in international relations at Monash Uni. His work focuses on nuclear weapons. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Adair Sheppard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
Daily Telegraph
an hour ago
- Daily Telegraph
It's fire, it's fury, it's for real: What happens next as Middle East teeters on destruction
Don't miss out on the headlines from World. Followed categories will be added to My News. It's fire. It's fury. It's for real. Israeli strike jets are pounding nuclear production sites. Iranian missiles are crashing down on cities. US aircraft carrier battle groups and aerial tankers streaming towards the Middle East. And hundreds of thousands of civilians are fleeing for the hills. All of these things have happened before. Just not always all at once. And not with US President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in charge. Together, the three world leaders (with more than a bit of help from Russia's President Vladimir Putin and China's Chairman Xi Jinping) have changed the world. It certainly is change. But perhaps not as they want it. Strategic analysts fear each leader has talked himself into a corner. They're all stuck in their own 'commitment trap'. All sides face wildly escalating threats. And that includes steep personal costs. 'Under this dynamic, neither side can step back without accepting an intolerable outcome,' warns University of Pennsylvania nuclear security analyst Dr Farah Jan. 'Under this dynamic, neither side can step back without accepting an intolerable outcome.' (Photo by Jack GUEZ / AFP) 'For Israel, an Iran more determined than even in becoming a nuclear weapons nation capable of deterring Israeli action and ending its regional military dominance; for Iran, the risk of regime change through devastating Israeli strikes. 'The consequences of this deadly logic extend far beyond the Middle East.' President Trump, true to his signature style, remains a wildcard. Hundreds of thousands turned out on US streets in 'No Kings' protests as the President's birthday military parade grimly marched on under rain and ridicule. His 'day one' promise to end the war in Ukraine has been abandoned. His promise to find two trillion dollars in budget savings has become another enormous blowout. Now, his much-hyped 'deal' with Iran is in flames. 'Iran should have signed the deal I told them to sign,' he stated on Truth Social. 'What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' That evacuation order was not his, however. It came from Israel's Netanyahu – drawing on his prior successes in generating civil chaos in Gaza. But, with Iran continuing to launch retaliatory missile strikes and refusing to back down, both Netanyahu and Trump face a growing reality: The Law of Unintended Consequences. All sides face wildly escalating threats. (Photo by Ronen Zvulun / POOL / AFP) Brave new world 'The trajectory of the conflict appears bleak,' warns Nuclear Threat Initiative analyst Eric Brewer. 'Israel has set back but not ended Iran's nuclear program. It now seems focused on trying to destabilise and eventually end the regime. Iran is not likely to go quietly, and there is a significant risk that the United States will also become embroiled in the war.' Israel's audacious attacks against Iran began with the rogue nation's nuclear program directly in its sights. It has since broadened that to include government officials, airports and television stations. World leaders, including those assembling in Canada for the G7 summit of leading world economies, have demanded an immediate de-escalation to avoid all-out war. Netanyahu, however, overnight insisted he was 'changing the face of the Middle East'. Will it soon glow in the dark? The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warned today there is a possibility of chemical and radiological contamination coming out of the Iranian nuclear processing facility at Natanz. It added it had not detected this yet, though. The IDF (Israeli Defence Force) now asserts it has 'full aerial superiority' over Tehran and much of the country. But its F-35 Stealth Fighters and F-15 Strike Eagles are incapable of doing more than scratch the surface of the bunkers (and mountains) housing Iran's most prized nuclear and missile assets. Netanyahu has another option. This photo shows rocket trails and intercepts in the sky over the Israeli city of Netanya on June 14, 2025. Iran struck Israel early June 14 with barrages of missiles after a massive onslaught targeted the Islamic republic's nuclear and military facilities, and killed several top generals. Picture: JACK GUEZ / AFP Israel itself possesses nuclear weapons manufactured outside the scope of international treaties and agreements. Combined with orders for Tehran's 330,000 residents to evacuate, social media speculation surged. Israeli Minister of Defence Israel Katz fanned the flames by declaring on social media that 'the Iranian propaganda and incitement mouthpiece is on its way to disappear,' adding that the 'evacuation of nearby residents has begun'. But Israel's free-roaming airstrikes and sabotage teams may have unintended consequences: an 'inherently unstable escalation spiral'. 'Iran increasingly believes it cannot deter Israeli aggression without nuclear weapons, yet every step toward acquiring them invites more aggressive Israeli strikes,' Dr Jan notes. 'Israel, for its part, cannot permanently eliminate Iran's nuclear knowledge through military means – it can only delay it through means that would seemingly guarantee future Iranian determination to acquire the ultimate deterrent.' Regimes of change 'The widespread nature of Israel's assault, which included attacks against senior Iranian officials and energy infrastructure, may convince Iran that Israel is targeting the regime itself, not pushing Iran toward a nuclear deal,' warns Brewer. Ayatollah Khamenei, like Trump and Netanyahu, faces pressures at home. His attempt to turn Iran into a religious state has been enthusiastically embraced – by secret police, religious militias and the military. But not so much by his general public. Killings over mild indiscretions, such as a schoolgirl not wearing her hijab in the officially proscribed fashion, have resulted in widespread discontent. It's a weakness Netanyahu seeks to exploit. He appealed to Iran, as an old ally under the Biblical king Cyrus the Great, to rise against the regime. (Trump has also been linked to Cyrus – as the unwitting foreign leader unintentionally doing god's work for him.) 'In his address aimed directly at the Iranian people, Netanyahu described the Israeli operation as 'clearing the path' for the overthrow of the regime,' notes Brewer. 'If Iran believes that there are no restraints on Israel's violence, then it has little incentive to make a deal.' Like Khamenei and Trump, Netanyahu is also in trouble at home. His Likud political party isn't popular enough to keep him in power. So he needs the support of far-right religious-nationalist parliamentarians, including the recently sanctioned ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Israeli rescuers search through the rubble of a heavily damaged building, following an overnight Iranian missile strike in Bat Yam on June 15, 2025. Picture: GIL COHEN-MAGEN / AFP Another no-confidence vote in this administration has this week been sidelined because of the war. As have ongoing attempts to put the Prime Minister in front of court over long-standing corruption charges. Meanwhile, Israeli citizens in Haifa have been detained by police for daring to wear 'No War' t-shirts. Then there's President Trump. Like Khamenei and Netanyahu, he's got trouble at home on his mind. 'The US is facing a crisis point on whether the current government and political process is capable of coping with or anticipating one or more potential hot spots exploding at home and abroad,' argues Atlantic Council analyst Dr Harlan Ullman, 'especially if protests over ICE and immigration spread across the nation and one of the overseas conflicts escalates uncontrollably.' He says many commentators are highlighting similarities between now and shortly before the 1850s US Civil War and 1914 before World War I, 'Since World War II, the US has confronted simultaneous crises at home and abroad. Protests over Vietnam and civil rights enforcement during the 1950s and 60s turned violent,' he explains. 'The US has fought at least four major wars and one major campaign since World War II — Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice and Afghanistan … The record has not been a good one.' And there's little indication the White House is in any better position than in the past. 'At this stage, a great deal could go very wrong,' Ullman concludes. A nuclear world 'Both Trump and Netanyahu believe they have a unique destiny to lead their nations at this hour—but both leaders face a public that is deeply divided about the wisdom of their policy choices,' argues Atlantic Council analyst Thomas Warrick. 'Both are gamblers and will double down when they are convinced they are right. 'It is inconceivable, therefore, that Trump would ever pressure Netanyahu to end the war short of what it will take to assure Israel's security.' But this time, the conflict is different. It's nuclear. 'Israel's conflict with Iran represents far more than another Middle Eastern crisis – it marks the emergence of a dangerous new chapter in nuclear rivalries that has the potential to reshape global proliferation risks for decades to come,' warns Dr Jan. 'The international community is witnessing the collapse of traditional deterrence frameworks in real-time.' Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian isn't reading from the same script as Prime Minister Netanyahu. Nor President Trump. He's vowed to rebuild any damaged nuclear refinement infrastructure. And Iran's parliament is sitting in an emergency session to debate abandoning its membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty altogether. (Israel never signed it). '(This) underscores that Israeli action designed to prevent nuclearization may instead result in Iran pursuing it with renewed determination,' Dr Jan adds. And Trump and Netanyahu have given Khamenei little reason to believe that abandoning his uranium enrichment program will solve his problems. 'There's a significant risk that Iran believes that the US efforts to negotiate a deal were simply a ruse—a delaying tactic for Israel to prepare its military attack,' Dr Brewer argues. Whether or not this is true doesn't really matter. 'Regardless of Trump's intentions, what matters most now is perception,' argues Royal United Services Institute analyst Dr Julie Norman. 'At best, the US will be seen as giving Israel a 'plausible denial green light' to undertake the operation. At worst, the talks will be viewed as intentional cover for Israel to land a surprise blow; this perception could have serious ramifications for US diplomacy more broadly, including on Gaza.' More shock and awe? 'Trump has added fuel to the fire by calling Israel's strikes 'excellent' and warning Iran of 'more to come,' seemingly seeking credit for an attack he publicly opposed,' Dr Norman argues. 'As the situation escalates, it is uncertain how far Washington will get involved, whether by choice or necessity.' What is certain is that dozens of United States Air Force (USAF) tanker aircraft have been seen streaming into Europe and onward towards the Middle East. These aircraft are needed to sustain long-distance air strikes by the US (or Israel) deep into the heart of Iran. 'It is impossible to predict at this point how the war will evolve, let alone conclude,' warns Brewer. 'But chances are good that Israel's attack on Iran will not have the effect that Trump hopes. Instead, it will make reaching a diplomatic agreement harder and increase the chances that Iran eventually builds a nuclear weapon.' Netanyahu, at the weekend, promised that the current round of strikes on Iran was 'nothing compared to what they will feel in coming days'. He knows that if he backs down, he – and Israel – must accept a nuclear-armed Iran. That's unacceptable in the face of his 'existential threat' rhetoric. 'Netanyahu sees a narrow window to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat and does not believe that the Iranian regime will ever agree to the kind of deal Trump wants,' argues Warwick. 'For Netanyahu, war now was the only option.' Ayatollah Khamenei's choice is similarly stark: Remain vulnerable to attack at Israel's whim? Or seize the strength offered by 'mutually assured destruction'? Dr Jan says President Kim Jong-un's experience makes the second outcome most likely. Trump has added fuel to the fire. Picture: Mandel NGAN / AFP 'Despite decades of sanctions and military threats, Pyongyang's nuclear program has made it essentially immune to preventive strikes,' she explains. 'Iranian leaders understand this lesson well – the question is whether they can reach the same protected status before suffering decisive preventive action.' Can Israel alone produce the necessary firepower for decisive action? Or must President Trump pitch in? 'This creates 'use it or lose it' dynamics,' Dr Jan warns. 'Israel faces shrinking windows to act preventively as Iran approaches weaponization; Iran faces incentives to accelerate its program before suffering additional strikes.' Trump has already pivoted from being the 'President for Peace' to 'Peace through Power'. Will 'bombing the hell out of (Iran)' be next? 'Two months ago, I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to 'make a deal',' Trump posted to his personal social media company, Truth Social. 'They should have done it!' It will be a popular line for some Republican war hawks. But not all MAGA (Make America Great Again) cheerleaders. 'He has people talking in one ear about supporting Israel and the other about staying clear of Middle East wars,' explains Warrick. 'Even if Washington and Tehran can hash out an arrangement, the risk of Israeli military action or sabotage would remain,' adds Brewer. 'The fact that this month's Israeli attack began while talks with the United States were ongoing underscores that risk.' But the ball is in Trump's court. 'Trump may be the wildcard here depending on whether he wants to let the two sides 'fight it out,' or if he decides to press Israel to wind down its attacks and Iran to return to nuclear negotiations.,' concludes Atlantic Council analyst Alan Pino. 'Given that a nuclear deal in which Iran gives up enrichment is unlikely, even if a temporary halt to the fighting is achieved, Israel will keep Iran in its crosshairs and conflict between the two countries will dominate Trump's Middle East agenda for the foreseeable future.' Originally published as It's fire, it's fury, it's for real: What happens next as Middle East teeters on edge of destruction
