The Memo: Risks loom as Trump moves toward direct participation in Israel's attack on Iran

The Hill

3 hours ago

President Trump is becoming ever more emphatic in his backing of Israel's attack on Iran, with the chances rising by the hour that he will green-light direct U.S. involvement.
The president discussed the crisis in the White House Situation Room with his closest advisors on Tuesday afternoon. Afterward, according to the Israeli news organization Haaretz, he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The road ahead is complicated, not least because there are stark differences within Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) support base over the merits of getting involved in foreign conflicts in Iran or anywhere else.
Then there is the vexing question of what, precisely, the goal would be if the U.S. joined military operations – and how it would be achieved.
Would it be limited to destroying the Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, which is literally built inside a mountain? Or would it be regime change in Tehran?
Then there are questions of economics and logistics, such as the effect of an all-out war on oil prices and on crucial mercantile traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
On Tuesday, Trump adopted his most belligerent stance yet on Iran in a series of social media posts.
Most blatant of all was an all-caps posting that demanded 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' It was not clear what exactly Trump meant by surrender.
The message from the president came shortly after one that had warned, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but he is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!) at least not for now.'
Trump's words were directed at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and it was notable in part because of media reports in recent days that Trump had kiboshed an Israeli plan to kill Khamenei at the start of the latest phase of the conflict.
Trump's use of the word 'we' in seeming reference to a direct alliance between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to the attack on Iran, was not lost on anyone either.
He had written on social media about an hour before, 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.'
It's a far cry from the beginning of the Israeli strikes on Iran, just five days previously, which were met by a quick statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio seeking to maintain at least some distance between the U.S. and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government.
'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' Rubio said.
But as Trump seems to be moving closer to a joint U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran, he is encountering pushback even from within his own base.
A range of prominent figures in MAGA World have expressed skepticism, and sometimes outright indignation, at the idea of the U.S. entangling itself in another conflict in the Middle East.
Figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, commentator Tucker Carlson and several online influencers are part of a populist conservative movement that has grown far more dubious of military involvements in the two decades since President George W. Bush and his coterie of neoconservative advisors launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Monday, Greene took aim on social media at 'fakes' who were 'slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war.'
On Tuesday, she emphasized the need to cater to Americans who want their leaders to work on kitchen-table issues, like 'cheap gas, groceries, bills, and housing,' rather than having the government's energy and resources 'going into another foreign war.'
Carlson has become one of the main right-wing media voices expressing opposition to foreign military adventuring, and skepticism about the assumption that the U.S. should back Israel in almost any endeavor.
On Monday, he published a long on-camera interview with Bannon in which the erstwhile strategist began by saying that one of the main pillars of the MAGA coalition from the start of Trump's rise was to 'stop the forever wars.'
'I'm a big supporter of Israel,' Bannon said, 'and I'm telling people, hey, if we get sucked into this war…it's going to not just blow up the [MAGA] coalition, it's also going to thwart what we're doing' on the domestic front — specifically in terms of Trump's hardline policies on immigration.
It bears emphasizing that the risks for Trump in directly joining the Israeli assault are not limited to the split in his political base.
For a start, there is the perennial problem with military operations that the late secretary of State Colin Powell dubbed 'mission creep.' Powell was referring to the tendency for objectives to become more and more expansive over time, to a point where it becomes politically difficult to either withdraw troops or declare victory
At the same time, there are voices within the GOP coalition loudly insisting that Trump should give Israel the utmost backing. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said that the U.S. should go 'all-in' behind Israel if Iran does not come to an agreement over its uranium enrichment program.
If Trump were to confound current expectations, he would keep the U.S. out of the direct conflict.
But he would also be open to criticism from the most vehement supporters of Israel, within his own party and beyond, that he had blinked at a crucial time, passing up on what they see as a potentially transformative moment.
Either way, the risks and rewards are profound — especially for a president who has previously expressed pride in his ability to keep the U.S. out of new wars.
The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.