In a significant turn of events, President Donald Trump found himself evolving in his stance regarding Israeli military operations against Iran, particularly concerning Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities.
Initially opposed to military action and favoring diplomatic negotiations, Trump became convinced by recent intelligence assessments that Israel’s concerns over Iran’s growing nuclear program were justified.
This shift in perspective occurred following a crucial briefing on June 8 by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, focusing on Israel’s proposed military actions and the potential supportive measures the United States could provide.
By this time, Trump was increasingly frustrated with Iran for its lack of response to a new nuclear deal proposal, even while remaining hopeful about ongoing peace negotiations led by Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
However, private pressure from allies advocating for a more isolationist U.S. foreign policy weighed on Trump, as they urged him to restrain Israeli military action or withhold U.S. support.
This account is informed by interviews with various current and former U.S. officials as well as Middle Eastern representatives familiar with the deliberations.
As tensions escalated, Israel insisted on the urgency of addressing Iran’s threats, leading Trump to gradually ease his opposition to Israel’s military objectives.
On the Thursday evening when Israeli strikes commenced, Trump maintained a public stance favoring diplomacy, suggesting that a peaceful agreement could still be reached between Iran and Israel.
During a signing ceremony, he stated, “I prefer the more friendly path,” even as he acknowledged the ongoing discussions with Iranian officials about potential agreements.
Behind the scenes, Israeli officials had already paved the way for U.S. cooperation, believing that Trump’s approval could solidify their military plans against Iran.
Despite his initial reluctance, Trump accepted that Israel was resolute in neutralizing Iran’s nuclear threats and decided that some U.S. military support would be necessary for defensive and intelligence purposes.
Following the commencement of Israeli strikes, the U.S. administration made efforts to downplay any military assistance provided, focusing on the narrative that U.S. forces were not directly involved.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as national security adviser, strategically omitted any mention of U.S. support in his statements regarding the operation.
While Israel conducted initial strikes using its intelligence capabilities, they significantly relied on American intelligence and military assets, including bunker-buster bombs and air defense systems prepared in advance.
However, Trump maintained certain boundaries, notably disapproving Israeli plans to target Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, advising against any actions that could escalate the conflict significantly.
On social media, Trump reiterated his preference for diplomatic engagement, proclaiming that Iran and Israel should negotiate a deal akin to previous agreements he helped broker.
The contours of Trump’s changing stance crystallized during discussions at Camp David, where Gen. Caine presented options, including logistical support for Israeli operations.
These discussions encompassed a range of U.S. support, from aerial refueling and intelligence sharing to potential direct military involvement.
Yet, another option presented to Trump was simply to refrain from any military support altogether.
Throughout his presidency, Trump has advocated for a reduction in U.S. engagement in foreign conflicts, evidenced by his attempts to resolve issues like the war in Ukraine and the violence in Gaza, albeit with limited success.
As Israel’s anxiety over Iran’s intentions heightened, concern grew that Trump’s diplomatic initiatives might not yield desired results.
Despite earlier warnings to Israel against military action, the tone from the White House gradually shifted to reflect greater support for an Israeli strike as the situation evolved.
This change was partly spurred by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report declaring that Iran was noncompliant with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations.
Alarmed by reports of qualitative advances in Iran’s nuclear program, Trump was determined to avoid being the president at the helm during Tehran’s potential nuclear armament.
In preparation for the Israeli offensive, U.S. European Command had already started reassessing its military posture in the region, redirecting reconnaissance aircraft to the Middle East for surveillance purposes.
Amidst these developments, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that a significant supply of U.S. anti-drone missiles had been redirected to the Middle East, signaling a shift in U.S. military resource allocation consistent with the heightened tensions.
Conversations between Trump and Netanyahu intensified leading up to the strikes, with Trump progressively acknowledging Israel’s determination to initiate military action against Iran.
In support of potential counterattacks from Tehran, the Pentagon mobilized additional U.S. naval resources to the region, positioning destroyers and a carrier strike group in proximity to Israel.
Although peace talks involving Witkoff were originally planned as late as Friday, the unfolding conflict prompted a reevaluation, leading to their cancellation.
U.S. officials maintained that, while discussions had been postponed, the administration remained committed to pursuing negotiations in the future, waiting for Iran to engage in dialogue once again.
The evolving dynamics surrounding Israeli military action reflect not only Israel’s strategic imperatives but also the complex considerations faced by the Trump administration in responding to escalating regional tensions.
image source from：https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-went-opposing-israels-strikes-iran-reluctant-support-rcna213091
