Will he, won't he? The world waits as Trump considers attacking Iran
In a speech while visiting Riyadh last month, US President Donald Trump attacked America's foreign policy record in the Middle East, saying the neocons who had tried to 'nation build' had wrecked far more countries than they had constructed.
'The interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand,' he told the Arab Islamic American Summit.
The President's remarks found a receptive audience from Arab observers, who hope America's future ties to the Middle East will be based primarily on investment partnerships rather than destabilising military entanglements.
But barely one month later, Mr Trump appears poised to let loose America's dogs of war and intervene in a complex society, by joining Israel as it strikes Iran.
For now, Mr Trump is maintaining a degree of strategic ambiguity, saying he ' may or may not ' strike Iran. But he has dropped some very heavy hints that the US will be helping Israel as it strikes suspected Iranian nuclear sites. On Tuesday, he demanded the ' unconditional surrender ' of Tehran's government and said the US could kill supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – but prefers not to, 'for now'.
Mr Trump has consistently said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but his increasingly bellicose tone marks a departure from his previous insistence that a deal could be reached with Tehran over its nuclear programme. On Wednesday, he said it was 'very late to be talking' and seemed to rebuff what he claimed was an Iranian attempt to restart talks. The vibe in Washington definitely feels more war-war than jaw-jaw.
Iran denied it had asked to 'grovel at the gates of the White House', and the Ayatollah has called Mr Trump's remarks 'unacceptable'.
Much has been made of another potential restraining factor ahead of a war announcement, namely Mr Trump's Make America Great Again base, which has long insisted the US must not enter another costly overseas conflict. Maga maven Marjorie Taylor Greene said this week that anyone wishing for war with Iran was ' disgusting ' and lamented America's previous military engagements in the Middle East.
'Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/Maga,' she wrote on X. 'Wishing for murder of innocent people is disgusting. We are sick and tired of foreign wars. All of them.'
Although he has said he wants to be remembered as a unifier and peacemaker, Mr Trump seems to be leaning into joining Israel's war – and to an extent already has. The Pentagon has assets positioned across the Middle East and is helping to defend Israeli skies from Iranian missiles.
And as we saw during his military parade at the weekend, which depending on your viewpoint was either a badly attended embarrassment or a patriotic triumph of military might, he loves looking at American materiel in action.
'Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA,' he said on Tuesday when extolling American military gear, saying that 'we' had complete control of Iranian skies, hinting at close co-ordination with Israel as it bombs Tehran.
When asked whether he was concerned a new war would alienate his Maga base, Mr Trump shrugged it off, rightly surmising that there is very little he can do to upset his true believers.
'My supporters are more in love with me today, and I'm in love with them more than they were even at election time,' he said.
Some members of Congress have also begun to assert that they should have a say in whether America goes to war, with bipartisan legislation being introduced to force a vote on military action.
But any prospect of the rubber-stamp Republicans opposing in a meaningful way is remote.
For now, it appears Republican hawks and Israel have more of the President's ear than the Maga wing of his party.
'I'm not looking to fight. But if it's a choice between fighting and having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do," he said in the Oval Office on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Senators introduce bill to repeal Caesar Act and end sanctions on Syria
Two senators have introduced a bill to repeal the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act that enacted sanctions on the government of Bashar Al Assad for war crimes against the Syrian people. Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Rand Paul on Wednesday announced the bill, saying the sanctions had achieved their goal of isolating the former president but that they now threaten to derail Syria's path towards stability and reconstruction. 'The Syrian people have a generational opportunity to write a new chapter for their country and the entire Middle East,' said Ms Shaheen. 'We can keep the new Syrian authorities accountable without decimating the economy. Sustained diplomatic engagement can yield tremendous results." The Assad regime fell last December after a lightning offensive by groups led by Hayat Tahrir Al Sham. HTS's leader, Ahmad Al Shara, was chosen as transitional president. The new government in Damascus lobbied for western countries to remove sanctions levied during Mr Al Assad's rule. Although Washington has been wary of the new government, because HTS was previously allied with Al Qaeda, President Donald Trump announced in May that the US would remove sanctions. Repealing the Caesar Act would end broad-based economic sanctions while preserving US tools to hold Syrian officials accountable, the senators said in a statement. 'While the Caesar Act was intended to isolate the Assad regime, it has ended up punishing everyday Syrians – fuelling poverty, crippling recovery and blocking progress toward peace," Mr Paul said. "This repeal is about restoring a more targeted, principled approach that holds bad actors accountable without inflicting unnecessary suffering on the very people we claim to support." The bill would further remove significant risks for companies looking to do business in Syria, giving the country an opportunity for economic recovery after years of economic stagnation.
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
As Trump weighs bombing Iran's Fordow, 'mission creep' lurks behind US attack
US President Donald Trump believes he is only weighing military strikes on Iran's Fordow nuclear plant, but the history of Middle East "mission creep" lurks behind his deliberations. Mission creep is when a military campaign's objectives start to shift and devolve into a longer, unforeseen commitment, and has often characterised US military adventures around the world. "If the US does join the war in Iran - and right now I think it won't - it will go in planning only to do some limited bombing. But as we all know, once you're in a war, there can be a lot of surprises. It is much easier to get into a war than to get out of one,' Tom E Ricks, the author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, told Middle East Eye. On Thursday evening, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump approved a US attack plan on Iran but is waiting to see if he can get Iran to renounce its nuclear programme. The New York Times also followed that with a report saying Iran was willing to accept Trump's offer to meet. But history shows that the US may struggle to stop at Fordow, even if Trump wants to. His deliberation on whether to attack Iran is being compared to the 2003 decision to invade Iraq, but that might be a false comparison. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The story of the US's involvement in Iraq is one of incremental involvement. In 1991, the US implemented a no-fly zone to protect Iraq's Kurdish minority. Then, in 1998, the US and UK launched widespread strikes on Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein failed to allow weapons inspectors access to his country. The decision to invade fully came in 2003 after the US falsely claimed the country had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda militant group. Even then, experts say there are key differences from now. Although Israel lobbied the US for many years to invade Iraq, that war was US-led. US joins 'Israel-led war' Now, Trump is on the cusp of joining Israel in what is the zenith of its long campaign to rewrite the balance of power in the Middle East since the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023. That attack set off a region-wide war with Israeli ground troops occupying the Gaza Strip. Israel degraded Hezbollah in Lebanon and has repeatedly launched strikes in Syria, both while Bashar al-Assad's government was in power there and after his overthrow in December 2024. 'Iraq was a US war,' Paul Salem, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told MEE. 'What we have seen since 7 October [2023] is something different; Israeli-led and designed wars with Israeli objectives and the US coming along.' If Trump does launch strikes on Iran, he will do so under justifications that echo 2003, but it's still not an apples-to-apples comparison. Then, the US falsely claimed that Iraq's Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. But there are key differences now. 'What makes this precipice of intervention unique is that the US was engaged in direct negotiations with Iran,' Fawaz Gerges, author of What Really Went Wrong: The West and the Failure of Democracy in the Middle East, told MEE. 'What makes this precipice of intervention unique is that the US was engaged in direct negotiations with Iran' - Fawaz Gerges, academic and author Indeed, just before the Israeli attack, Iran and the US were set to meet in Oman for the sixth round of nuclear talks aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear programme. And the reality is that this agreement would just be a follow-up deal to the nuclear deal that Iran and the US signed during President Barack Obama's tenure, which Trump unilaterally exited from during his first tenure. However, in 2003, Hussein ultimately rejected requests for inspectors to enter Iraq. The Bush administration then used false intelligence to justify its attack. Trump's own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said in March that Iran was not seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Trump disregarded her assessment. 'I don't care what she said,' Trump said on Tuesday about the assessment. 'I think they were very close to having a weapon.' As of Thursday, Trump was still vacillating between striking Iran and appearing to use Israel's pummelling of the Islamic Republic as a negotiating card to achieve what he says his aim is - Iran renouncing all enrichment of uranium. "I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," Trump said in the Oval Office. He earlier called for Iran's 'unconditional surrender'. Arab officials whose countries have been trying to mediate between Iran and the US told MEE earlier that they believe Trump is more likely than not to order US strikes on Iran. The expected target of American strikes is Fordow, the Iranian enrichment facility buried half a kilometre underground. Israel needs the US's 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs and B-2 aircraft to have a chance at destroying the plant through conventional strikes. Mission creep The US has conducted limited bombing campaigns elsewhere in the Middle East, but has rarely avoided being drawn into a deeper commitment. One example where it did so was 1986 in Libya, when the Reagan administration bombed Muammar Gaddafi's regime in retaliation for the bombing of a disco in West Berlin that killed two US service members. Ethan Chorin, a former US diplomat and author, said the closest parallel to today is the Obama administration's 2011 decision to lead a Nato bombing campaign on Libya during the Arab Spring. 'Initially, US intervention in Libya was ostensibly to protect civilians in Benghazi,' Chorin said, author of Exit the Colonel: The Hidden History of the Libyan Revolution. But Chorin said the comparisons stop there. 'Libya was seen as a 'safer bet' for intervention during the Arab Spring. No one thinks Iran is marginal. There is a big difference. But the concern about mission creep is there.' Diego Garcia: The Indian Ocean base the US can use to target Iran Read More » 'Assume you destroy Fordow and have an agitated regime that is still in power. What lessons will they (the regime) have learned?' he added. The Trump administration has not stated that its goal is regime change in Iran, but Trump didn't rule it out, saying on Truth Social that the US knows where he is but has decided not to take him out, "at least not for now". But Israel has made no secret that a positive outcome for them of the attacks on Iran's senior chain of command, energy infrastructure and military capabilities could collapse the government. 'It could certainly be the result, because Iran is very weak,' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News on Monday. 'The decision to act, to rise up, at this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.' If Trump does enter the war with Israel, suggesting its goals are regime change, it would be a major pivot for a US president who visited the Gulf in May and excoriated 'interventionists' and 'nation-builders'. Libya, a predominantly Sunni Muslim country of just seven million people, is a bad comparison. The spark for the protests against Gaddafi was organic, coming as part of the wider Arab Spring movement. It then descended into a civil war, fuelled in part by Gulf states backing rival militias. Even Iraq, where the US carried out De-Ba'athification after ousting Hussein's secular government, does not compare to Iran, Gerges told MEE. 'There is a delusion of raw power here,' he told MEE. 'The objectives have changed, but here the goal seems to be to destroy as much as possible in the military infrastructure and see if, as a side effect, you bring about regime change or just chaos.'
Arabian Business
4 hours ago
- Arabian Business
Kuwait announces Islamic New Year holiday
The Kuwaiti Cabinet has declared Thursday, June 26 as a public holiday on the occasion of the Islamic New Year (Hijri New Year). All ministries and state bodies in the country will suspend work on that day and resume work on Sunday, June 29. The decision was made by the Cabinet during its weekly meeting, presided over by Prime Minister Sheikh Ahmad Abdullah Al Ahmad Al Sabah. Islamic New Year in Kuwait The Cabinet congratulated Amir Sheikh Meshal Al Ahmad Al-Jaber Al Sabah, Crown Prince Sheikh Sabah Khaled Al-Hamad Al Sabah and the national citizens on the Islamic New Year.
