How Trump, a self-proclaimed 'peacemaker', embraced Israel's campaign against Iran, World News
WASHINGTON — Roughly one month ago, from the stage at an investment forum in Saudi Arabia, US President Donald Trump issued a warning to Iran that would prove prophetic.
"We'll never allow America and its allies to be threatened with terrorism or nuclear attack," Trump told the crowd, sending a message to the leadership in Tehran.
"The time is right now for them to choose. Right now. We don't have a lot of time to wait. Things are happening at a very fast pace."
That May 13 ultimatum received little attention at the time.
But behind the scenes, the president already knew an attack on Iran could be imminent — and that there might be little he could do to stop it, according to two US officials.
By mid-May, the Pentagon had begun drawing up detailed contingency plans to aid Israel if it followed through on its long-held ambition to strike Iran's nuclear programme, the officials said. And the US had already diverted thousands of defencive weapons away from war-torn Ukraine toward the Middle East in preparation for potential conflict, according to a Western source familiar with the matter and a Ukrainian source.
The Pentagon declined to comment for this story.
This account of the weeks and days leading up to Trump's decision to throw his support behind Israel's bombing campaign is based on interviews with over a dozen administration officials, foreign diplomats and Trump confidantes, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The picture that emerges is that of a long, secretive preparation process and a president who for weeks found himself torn between diplomacy and supporting military action — and was ultimately persuaded in part by an ally whose actions he did not fully control.
While Trump has long described himself as a peacemaker — dispatching Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to the region several times to try to seal a diplomatic accord — he had several trusted political allies pushing him to back an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
[[nid:719255]]
And US intelligence had indicated a unilateral Israeli strike was possible, even likely, even if Trump wanted to wait, according to two US officials.
While it is unclear if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Trump's more hawkish allies ever got him to a "yes" to Israel's plans, by the days leading up the strike he was at least not a "no," according to two senior US officials and a senior Israeli source.
That stance, people familiar with the dynamics said, helped tip Israel into action.
Seven days into the Israel-Iran conflict, Trump is left with a dilemma, said Aaron David Miller, a veteran diplomat who has advised six secretaries of state on Middle East policy.
He can try again to pursue a diplomatic resolution with Iran, allow Iran and Israel "to fight it out," or he can enter the war with US airstrikes on the deeply buried Fordow enrichment plant, a step that would have unknown consequences for the region.
Trump "let it (the Israeli attack) happen," said Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace policy institute. "He got on the tiger and he's riding it."
The White House on Thursday said that Trump will make a decision on whether the US will get involved in the conflict in the next two weeks.
The White House, the Israeli prime minister's office and Iran's delegation to the United Nations did not respond to a request for comment. Tehran has consistently said its nuclear programme is designed for peaceful purposes only, a conclusion Washington has rejected. The coming storm
One of the first hints that Trump might sign off on an Israeli bombing campaign came in April.
[[nid:719299]]
During a closed-door meeting on April 17, Saudi Arabia's defence minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian: Take Trump's offer to negotiate an agreement seriously because it presents a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel.
Reuters could not determine whether the message was sent at Washington's behest, nor whether Iran's leaders took that message seriously.
With hindsight, they should have.
The Israel Defence Forces and the head of US Central Command, General Michael "Erik" Kurilla, were discussing detailed intelligence about Iran's missile buildup and nuclear programme and steps that could be required to defend US troops and Israel itself in any conflict with Iran, according to a US official and senior Israeli official.
Meanwhile, the US was funnelling weapons to Israel that would be useful for an air war with Iran. In one instance in early May, a large shipment of defencive missiles originally meant for Ukraine was diverted to Israel instead, according to the Western source and the Ukrainian source.
The diverted shipment caused consternation in Kyiv and sparked continued fears that additional weapons needed to defend against Moscow will instead be used to defend US interests elsewhere, the Ukrainian source said.
In the opening months of Trump's term, Israel had already proposed to Washington a series of options to attack Iran's facilities, according to sources.
While Trump had rebuffed those ideas, saying he preferred diplomacy for the time being, several people close to him said he was never dead-set against using military force against Iran.
[[nid:719288]]
He had done so before. In 2020, despite a foreign policy during his first term that was otherwise marked by restraint, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed major general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' division responsible for its international operations.
The Iranian government has since sought to murder Trump in revenge, US prosecutors have said, an allegation Tehran denies.
Behind the scenes, Trump had been pulled in multiple directions on the Iran issue since before he even took office.
On one side, many supporters - including conservative media personality Tucker Carlson - and administration officials saw Trump's Make America Great Again movement as an antidote to decades of foreign wars that cost thousands of American lives without significantly advancing American interests.
On the other, several close Trump allies - from conservative commentator Mark Levin to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham - were portraying a nuclear Iran as an existential threat that must be removed at any cost.
Trump himself took pride in being a broker of peace.
"My proudest legacy," he said during his inauguration address, "will be that of a peacemaker and unifier." "It's a tango"
Ultimately, no US official, Trump confidante or diplomat Reuters talked to identified an epiphany that tipped the scales for the president.
One senior administration official said that after months of sitting on the fence a lack of diplomatic progress, a push from the Israelis and appeals by hawkish allies likely wore him down.
Trump aides and allies have noted that Israel's attack unfolded just after the expiry of a 60-day deadline the Trump administration had set for a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran.
The senior US official said another dynamic was at play: As US intelligence consistently showed Israel might go ahead with an attack with or without US support, the administration could look caught off guard if they did not get behind it. Worse, it could appear that the US was opposing a longtime ally.
Although Trump had appeared to some to snub Netanyahu as he pushed for a peaceful solution to the crisis, privately, Israel understood that Washington would stand by it, said a separate official.
By the time Trump talked to Netanyahu on Monday, June 9 — one of many phone calls in recent days — his stance was one of tacit, if not explicit approval, according to one US and one Israeli official.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had said he would like more time to see diplomacy play out. But the US official said that he did not explicitly veto Israel's plans.
By Wednesday, June 11, it was clear to Washington that Israel's plans were a go.
That day, Reuters reported that the US was preparing a partial evacuation of its Iraqi embassy amid fears of reprisals from Iran following an imminent attack.
The next day, June 12, Washington sent a formal diplomatic note to several regional allies, warning them that an attack was imminent.
That evening, Israel launched its overnight barrage, an attack that almost immediately escalated into an air war.
Trump and some key cabinet members watched the events live from the wood-paneled "JFK room," part of the White House Situation Room. Other officials watched the events nearby.
On the menu, per one official: stone crabs from a local restaurant.
The initial attack appeared to be a success, with several close advisers to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei killed and key nuclear sites seriously damaged. Over the weekend, the Israelis considered killing Khamenei himself, but were waved off by Trump, according to two US officials.
Almost immediately, a political civil war erupted in Trump's Republican Party, with several high-profile conservatives, including members of Congress, accusing his administration of fanning the flames of war.
Seven days on, the US intelligence community believes the strikes have set Iran's nuclear ambitions back by only months, according to a source familiar with US intelligence reports, confirming a CNN report.
A significant blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, most analysts say, will require dropping bunker-busting bombs on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the crown jewel of Iran's nuclear programme. Only the US has that capability.
Trump has said he is considering such a strike, which would represent a major escalation for the United States.
As of Thursday, his intentions were still unclear.
[[nid:719286]]
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
25 minutes ago
- Straits Times
What if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz?
What if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz? Israeli aerial bombardment has wiped out much of Iran's ballistic missile capability and decapitated its military command, but Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has refused to stop fighting, even promising 'irreparable damage' to the US if it intervenes in the conflict in support of its staunch ally. This has stoked speculation that Iran's leadership may reach for another way to pressure its enemies to relent – blocking or effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. This narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf handles around a quarter of the world's oil trade. So if Iran were able to deny access to the giant tankers that ferry oil and gas to China, Europe and other major energy consuming regions, it would send oil prices shooting higher and potentially destabilise the global economy. Iran has targeted merchant ships traversing the choke point in the past, and has even threatened to block the strait. The UK issued a rare warning to mariners days before Israel began bombarding Iran, saying increased tensions in the region could impact shipping, while Frontline, one of the world's largest oil-tanker operators, said it would be more cautious about offering its vessels to haul cargoes from the Persian Gulf. Where is the Strait of Hormuz? The waterway connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, with Iran to its north and the United Arab Emirates and Oman to the south. It is almost 161km long and 34km wide at its narrowest point, with the shipping lanes in each direction just 3km wide. Its shallow depth makes ships potentially vulnerable to mines, and the proximity to land – Iran, in particular – leaves vessels open to attack from shore-based missiles or interception by patrol boats and helicopters. The strait is essential to the global oil trade. Tankers hauled almost 16.5 million barrels per day of crude and condensate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iran through the strait in 2024, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The strait is also crucial for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, with more than one-fifth of the world's supply – mostly from Qatar – passing through during the same period. Could Iran really block the Strait of Hormuz? Iran would have no legal authority to order a halt to traffic through Hormuz, so it would need to achieve this by force or the threat of force. If its navy tried to bar entry to the strait, it would likely be met with a strong response from the US Fifth Fleet and other Western navies patrolling the area. But it could cause severe disruption without a single Iranian warship leaving port. One option would be to harry shipping with small, fast patrol boats. Or it could launch drones and fire missiles toward ships from coastal or inland sites. That could make it too risky for commercial ships to venture through. Similar tactics have been employed successfully by the Houthi militia in Yemen to disrupt traffic through the Bab el Mandeb strait leading into the Red Sea on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Houthis have mostly fired missiles and drones at ships after warning owners of vessels linked to the US, the UK and Israel that they will be attacked if they approach the area. A US-led force in the Red Sea is seeking to protect shipping there. But the number of ships sailing through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden was still down about 70 per cent in June compared with the average level of 2022 and 2023, according to Clarkson Research Services, a unit of the world's largest shipbroker. This has forced vessel operators to reroute their traffic around the southern tip of Africa instead of going through the Suez Canal – a lengthier and more expensive journey for ships traveling between Asia and Europe. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would quickly hit Iran's own economy as it would prevent it from exporting its petroleum. And it would antagonise China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil and a critical partner that has used its veto power at the UN Security Council to shield Iran from Western-led sanctions or resolutions. When has Iran disrupted shipping? Iran has used harassment of ships in the Gulf for decades to register its dissatisfaction with sanctions against it, or as leverage in disputes. In April 2024, hours before launching a drone and missile attack on Israel, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps seized an Israel-linked container ship near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran released the ship's crew the following month, according to trade publication Lloyd's List. Tehran claimed that the MSC Aries had violated maritime regulations, but analysts pointed to its Israeli ownership connection as a motive. When it seized a US-bound tanker in April 2023, Iran said the ship had struck another vessel. But the move appeared to be retaliation for the seizure off Malaysia's coast of a ship loaded with Iranian crude by US authorities on the grounds of sanctions violations. In May 2022, Iran seized two Greek tankers and held them for six months, presumably a response to the confiscation by Greek and US authorities of Iranian oil on a different ship. The cargo was eventually released and the Greek tankers freed. So, too, was the oil on a tanker that Iran said it impounded in January 'in retaliation for the theft of oil by the US'. Has Iran ever closed the Strait of Hormuz? Not so far. During the 1980 to 1988 war between Iraq and Iran, Iraqi forces attacked an oil export terminal at Kharg Island, northwest of the strait, in part to provoke an Iranian retaliation that would draw the US into the conflict. Afterward, in what was called the Tanker War, the two sides attacked 451 vessels between them. That significantly raised the cost of insuring tankers and helped push up oil prices. When sanctions were imposed on Iran in 2011, it threatened to close the strait, but ultimately backed off. Commodore Alireza Tangsiri, head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval forces, said shortly before the MSC Aries seizure that Iran has the option of disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, but chooses not to. How did the US and allies respond to threats to Hormuz shipping in the past? During the Tanker War, the US Navy resorted to escorting vessels through the Gulf. In 2019, it dispatched an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the region. The same year, the US started Operation Sentinel in response to Iran's disruption of shipping. Ten other nations – including the UK, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain – later joined the operation, known now as the International Maritime Security Construct. Since late 2023, much of the focus on protecting shipping has switched away from the Strait of Hormuz and onto the southern Red Sea, the region's other vital waterway, and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait that connects it to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. Attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis on shipping entering or exiting the Red Sea became a greater concern than the Strait of Hormuz. Who relies most on the Strait of Hormuz? Saudi Arabia exports the most oil through the Strait of Hormuz, though it can divert shipments to Europe by using a 1200km pipeline across the kingdom to a terminal on the Red Sea, allowing it to avoid both the Strait of Hormuz and the southern Red Sea. The UAE can export some of its crude without relying on the strait, by sending 1.5 million barrels a day via a pipeline from its oil fields to the port of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman to the south of Hormuz. With its oil pipeline to the Mediterranean closed, all of Iraq's oil exports are currently shipped by sea from the port of Basra, passing through the strait, making it highly reliant on free passage. Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain have no option but to ship their oil through the waterway. Most of the oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz heads to Asia. Iran also depends on transit through the Strait of Hormuz for its oil exports. It has an export terminal at Jask, at the eastern end of the strait, which was officially opened in July 2021. The facility offers Tehran a means to get a little of its oil into the world without using the waterway and its storage tanks were slowly being filled with crude late last year. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
28 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Israel slams UN rights council for giving floor to Iran ahead of nuclear talks
FILE PHOTO: The flags alley is seen outside the United Nations building during the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, February 27, 2023. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File photo GENEVA - Israel's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva has raised "vehement objection" to Iran addressing the Human Rights Council ahead of talks with European counterparts in Geneva to try to de-escalate the conflict, according to a letter seen by Reuters. "Affording the Iranian foreign minister the floor before this body continues to undermine the council's credibility and constitutes a blatant betrayal of the many victims of this regime worldwide," Daniel Meron said in a letter addressed to council president Jurg Lauber. The council said on Friday said that Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was due to be given the floor. Shortly afterwards, he is due to hold talks with the EU foreign policy chief and his counterparts in Britain, France and Germany in order to de-escalate the conflict. In the letter, Meron accuses Iran of using the council as a international stage to "promote the regime's despotic campaign." On Wednesday, the Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva addressed the council and accused Israeli attacks as representing an act of "war against humanity". Israel began attacking Iran last Friday, saying it aimed to prevent its longtime enemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. It says its nuclear programme is peaceful. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Strait of Hormuz tracker: Fewer ships seen entering oil chokepoint
An oil tanker passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Such ships make up the bulk of traffic through the Strait. PHOTO: REUTERS Fewer commercial vessels appear to be entering the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for energy exports from the Persian Gulf to the world, as Israel's attack on Iran – and signs the US may join it – bring unease to the shipping industry. Importantly, oil tanker arrivals appear more normal. A five-day rolling average of vessels above 10,000 deadweight tons reveals a decline in ships sailing through the Strait into the Gulf since Israel and Iran started exchanging missile strikes a week ago, according to vessel-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. The drop was led by container ships and bulk carriers. Departures from the sea are just above usual norms. It is too early to draw definitive conclusions from the data, which are volatile at the best of times, but they offer a tentative idea that vessel owners might be steering clear of the conflict-ridden region. Of the ships entering, oil tankers are showing little impact so far, with about 40 to 44 of the vessels still sailing through the space in both directions. The ships account for bulk of the traffic through the Strait, with more than a quarter of the world's oil shipped through the waterway between Iran and Oman. Movements by liquefied petroleum gas and liquefied natural gas tankers also remain close to the usual combined total of seven to nine ships a day. While Iran has threatened repeatedly to close the Strait in times of heightened geopolitical tensions, the government in Tehran relies heavily on the route for its own oil and gas exports and revenues. Still, traders will be watching closely for any impact on traffic should US President Donald Trump decide to get his country's forces into the conflict. Overall, daily transits through the waterway remain within typical ranges, with most loading and discharge activities proceeding as planned. To be clear, it takes time to parse trends from data on shipping traffic. Cargo-loading schedules, the weather and other things can influence vessel movements and the snapshot covers a relatively short timespan. In addition, electronic interference affecting navigational signals in the region may be impacting the results. While physical traffic isn't blocked, high freight rates for vessels transiting the region reflects the wariness of shipowners amid the sharply increased perceived risk. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
