Following Israel’s military operation against Iran, initiated last Friday, the ramifications on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leadership have been profound.
However, experts agree that Israel alone cannot fully eradicate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, particularly not at the fortified Fordow facility, which poses significant challenges due to its underground structure.
Moreover, Israel has shown restraint in targeting Iran’s fuel-storage sites, aiming to avoid triggering a public health crisis.
In this context, the role of President Donald Trump and the United States has come under scrutiny, as it possesses the necessary aircraft and advanced munitions, namely bunker-buster bombs, to potentially disrupt operations at Fordow.
The evolving situation indicates that the outcome of this conflict hinges as much on U.S. decisions, particularly those made by Trump, as on the military actions undertaken by Israel.
Israel has called upon the U.S. to join its campaign, and if Trump opts to engage, it could lead to a significant setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously posing a threat to the regime’s stability—a prospect that might become a goal for the U.S. through the lens of escalation.
Nonetheless, the United States should exercise caution in its response and refrain from becoming embroiled as a combatant in this conflict alongside Israel.
Washington has a vested interest in curtailing Iran’s access to nuclear weapons, a stance reinforced by the 2015 nuclear agreement aimed at blocking such ambitions for years to come.
The agreement was viewed as a sustainable and cost-effective alternative to military intervention; a view not shared by Trump or Israel at the time.
In 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from this agreement, a move that inadvertently facilitated Iran’s rapid accumulation of enriched uranium.
Consequently, it remains against U.S. interests to engage in military action against Fordow or elsewhere.
If Israel is determined to strike Fordow significantly, it might consider ground operations or implementing measures to hinder access to the facility instead of relying on U.S. support, which would inevitably place American assets in Iran’s crosshairs.
Such a scenario could lead to Iranian retaliation targeting American civilians, setting off a cycle of aggression that could escalate into a broader conflict and reignite U.S. regime-change ambitions—an endeavor that lacks public support.
Political analysts assert that Trump’s involvement could also jeopardize his domestic agenda, as he navigates international and internal pressures.
As Trump adopted a more aggressive tone in recent statements, demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and threatening high-profile leaders, he ignored the stark realities of U.S. military involvement, which may incite Iranian attacks against U.S. interests.
This prospect poses a significant challenge for Trump, who typically treads cautiously regarding military action due to the likely repercussions and the risk of casualties on U.S. ships and bases.
Iran’s options for a conventional response dwindle, heightening concerns that its retaliation may manifest in asymmetric warfare, potentially targeting Americans and Jewish communities globally.
Influential members of Trump’s base, particularly figures like broadcaster Tucker Carlson, warn against diverging from the “America first” doctrine, arguing against U.S. military entanglement.
This sentiment resonates among a faction of conservative lawmakers who advise restraint, intensifying scrutiny on Trump’s foreign policy direction.
Discontent among congressional Republicans could emerge if public opinion shifts, threatening Trump’s broader political agenda, including his significant infrastructure initiatives.
Even if the U.S. plays a supportive role in neutralizing Iran’s nuclear facilities, pressing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cease military operations before he is convinced of the program’s permanent impairment may become a daunting task.
Past intelligence estimates suggest that Iran could restore its nuclear program rapidly, perhaps within a year after intensive attacks on its facilities.
While Netanyahu expresses ambitions to obliterate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, he currently lacks a well-defined strategy to achieve such a sweeping goal absent U.S. assistance, leading to uncertainty over whether partial damage would satisfy his objectives.
Consequently, a potential path forward for Trump involves striving for a resolution to the Israel-Iran conflict that acknowledges Israel’s military successes while permitting Iran to maintain face, thus facilitating a return to diplomatic negotiations.
The challenge is significant; achieving such a balance requires fostering a multilateral effort aimed at restricting Iran’s access to nuclear materials, exploiting the vulnerabilities revealed during recent hostilities to craft a negotiating strategy.
Central to this effort will be a credible agreement that decisively limits Iran’s nuclear aspirations while also managing regional perceptions and interests.
The Trump administration’s earlier responses to the conflict lacked coherent strategy, but recent shifts in tone indicate a more aggressive stance towards Iran, including threats directed at its supreme leader.
However, this escalated rhetoric does not accurately capture the complexity involved; full U.S. military involvement would likely provoke Iranian strikes against American assets, further entrenching the U.S. in a complex quagmire.
The opposition from Trump’s MAGA base makes courting support for military commitments particularly precarious.
As tensions escalate, the possibility of trench warfare emerges, with each side’s retaliatory actions escalating the conflict, compelling the U.S. into increasingly perilous positions.
Instead of a physical intervention, Trump’s best course of action entails diplomacy to conclude hostilities that respects Israel’s operation while managing Iran’s nuclear threat.
Clear, targeted dialogue with Israeli and U.S. military and intelligence partners is essential to gauge the effectiveness of actions taken against Iran’s nuclear capabilities, assessing the actual degradation suffered.
This assessment would need to consider various factors, including Israeli operations targeting key Iranian figures and infrastructure, all while navigating the reality that some high-value assets may remain intact.
Therefore, the Trump administration must guide Israel towards an understanding that sufficient damage could be done without necessitating the total destruction of Fordow or an indefinite campaign of aerial strikes.
Simultaneously, establishing a reachable end state for the conflict is critical, focusing on measurable outcomes that can be achieved in the short term.
Netanyahu’s broader aspirations of regime change and total destruction must be tempered with a realistic assessment of U.S. willingness to support such extensive ambitions.
Trump should be prepared to communicate this clearly and outline reasonable military goals that safeguard U.S. interests without enabling excessive Israeli aggression.
With the united backing of Gulf allies, Iran’s leadership must realize that accepting severe constraints on enrichment is preferable to enduring continuous military strikes, economic sanctions, and potential challenges to their control over the state.
A collaborative approach with essential partners like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom would enable a sustained multilateral effort aimed at ensuring Iran does not reconstitute its nuclear capabilities.
This might echo Operation Staunch from the 1980s; a rigorous embargo aimed at crippling Iran’s position during its conflict with Iraq.
Should constructive engagement on these fronts unfold, drafting a UN Security Council resolution proposing a comprehensive cease-fire plan would be the next logical step.
This resolution should address conditions related to Iran’s nuclear program explicitly, ensuring the immediate return of inspectors and the removal of barriers impeding their access to facilities.
Controlling the import of nuclear-related components into Iran and mandating the exportation of enriched uranium is essential in re-establishing credible oversight.
In resuming negotiations, it is important for Trump to adopt a pragmatic stance, recognizing that any deal may not be drastically different from the 2015 agreement previously established.
Insisting on a complete halt to uranium enrichment within Iran itself would undoubtedly be contentious, given the country’s longstanding position advocating their right to enrich uranium.
Negotiating a way forward that accommodates these fundamental differences will be no small feat, especially for Netanyahu, who has risked significant military retaliation from Iran to dismantle their nuclear ambitions.
One potential solution gaining traction involves the creation of a regional consortium for uranium enrichment supervised by international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency.
This arrangement could grant Iran limited access to low-enriched uranium for peaceful purposes while assuaging Israeli concerns over Iranian enrichment capabilities.
Successfully managing this multifaceted diplomatic effort poses political risks for Trump as well, as diverting intelligence resources towards Iran could limit attention available for other global priorities, particularly regarding China and Russia.
Negotiating a new nuclear deal that allows for any Iranian enrichment will prompt considerable pushback from Trump’s supporters and necessitate navigating significant political capital expenditure.
Nevertheless, the potential consequences of renewed conflict emphasize that these calculated risks are essential to avert another unwarranted war.
Israel’s military campaign has already been a pivotal force, showcasing its strength in both intelligence and military capabilities, leading to a transformation in the regional landscape.
Following the resolution of this conflict, Trump can redirect efforts toward fostering normalization between Israel and Arab nations, a task where U.S. involvement could be invaluable.
However, failure to act decisively—or worse, overcommitting to military engagement—will hinder Trump’s ability to cultivate enduring peace in the Middle East, a goal he has consistently highlighted as vital.
In summary, he must navigate this complex situation carefully, ensuring that the conflict does not devolve into a prolonged and destructive war of attrition, while also preempting Iran from spinning their strategy towards terrorism and asymmetric warfare.
image source from：foreignaffairs
