The White House announced on Thursday that President Donald Trump will determine Washington’s response regarding the escalating Israel-Iran conflict within the next two weeks.
Speculation has surged this week surrounding the possibility that the United States may provide assistance to its close ally Israel in conducting military strikes against Iran, which is purportedly aimed at disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Israel has been vocal in advocating for the provision of specific munitions, particularly ‘bunker buster’ bombs that could penetrate the fortified Fordow nuclear facility located deep within the mountainous regions of northwest Iran.
This announcement follows a week in which President Trump has shifted his stance on the burgeoning conflict.
In a statement to reporters, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt relayed that President Trump articulated his position on potential US involvement: “Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.”
Initially, when Israel conducted its assault on Iran on June 13, the Trump administration classified it as a ‘unilateral action,’ claiming that the US was not involved.
However, subsequent information has revealed that the United States had prior knowledge of Israel’s military operations.
During a recent Group of Seven (G7) summit in Canada, President Trump noted his belief that Iran was “very close” to obtaining a nuclear weapon, a statement that contradicted existing US intelligence assessments.
This statement marked a clear departure from his earlier position in May, when he suggested that the two nations were nearing an agreement over nuclear negotiations.
On Wednesday, Trump eluded questions on the US’s potential involvement in the conflict by stating, “I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.”
By Thursday, Trump seemed to establish a two-week timeframe for talks with Iran to bear fruit before the US would opt for decisive action.
Contrary to assumptions that this implies a delay in a US attack on Iran, it does not necessarily indicate that an attack will occur at all.
Press Secretary Leavitt maintained an air of ambiguity regarding potential developments after the two-week period: “The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution … he is a peacemaker-in-chief. He is the peace-through-strength president. And so, if there’s a chance for diplomacy, the president’s always going to grab it. But he’s not afraid to use strength as well.”
Mona Yacoubian, who serves as a senior adviser and director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), indicated that while the two-week timeframe would offer room for negotiations, it could also facilitate the US in mobilizing additional military resources should it decide to support Israel militarily.
As of now, it remains challenging to predict which scenario is more plausible or whether Trump’s ‘two weeks’ signifies an actual deadline.
Iranian American analyst Negar Mortazavi expressed skepticism regarding President Trump’s clarity on his strategic objectives, highlighting his campaign promises for peace amidst ongoing conflicts, notably illustrating the dichotomy of his actions versus his rhetoric.
Mortazavi emphasized, “I don’t even know if President Trump knows what he wants. He campaigned as the president of peace … he promised he’s going to end conflicts. Russia-Ukraine hasn’t ended. Gaza has escalated, and he just let the third big Middle East war, which looks like a regime-change war, start under his watch.”
Some analysts propose that Trump’s statement regarding the two-week window could be a strategic maneuver intended to apply pressure on Iran during ongoing discussions.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, remarked that Trump might be trying to leverage threats to compel Iran into a position of ‘total surrender’ on the nuclear issue.
He stated, “I think he’s trying to present himself as this madman who is unpredictable, and in so doing, he can then insist on this very hard line that Iran has refused to accept for decades of full dismantlement of its [nuclear] enrichment programme.”
Yacoubian further elaborated that the delayed time frame could serve as a tactical element in negotiations aimed at extracting broader concessions from Iran, especially concerning its ballistic missile program amid its weakened state following recent military strikes.
The unpredictability surrounding President Trump’s decision-making process remains a critical factor impacting the situation, with Yacoubian noting, “It’s extremely difficult to predict what will happen next. President Trump’s idiosyncratic negotiating strategy alongside his instinctual, ‘from-the-gut’ decision-making approach underscores the unpredictability of the coming days – which may well be the point!”
Historically, President Trump has often set deadlines regarding various geopolitical issues, including Iran’s nuclear program, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and trade tariffs, although adhering to these timelines has not been a consistent practice.
Analysts suggest that his proclivity to impose deadlines is a persistent feature of his negotiating style.
Yacoubian observed, “Imposing deadlines stands as perhaps the one predictable element of Trump’s approach to finding solutions to complex problems.”
One notable instance occurred when Trump designated a 60-day ultimatum for Iran regarding negotiations over its nuclear ambitions, yet discussions extended beyond the deadline imposed, culminating in Israel conducting military actions on June 13.
In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump had set a two-week deadline earlier this year, expressing hopes of discernible progress in negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, yet failed to signal any changes in US policy as the timeline ended without a resolution to the conflict.
Despite the overarching plans and intentions, periods of uncertainty appear to echo throughout Trump’s strategy, particularly in relation to military and diplomatic engagements on the global stage.
As for the realm of trade, Trump’s approach has also seen delays and recalibrations. Anticipating significant tariffs on trading partners, he proposed a pause earlier this year, only to extend deadlines as negotiations evolved.
Ultimately, the next two weeks hold considerable weight as the implications of President Trump’s decision will resonate far beyond the immediate concerns yet signal possible shifts in US policy moving forward.
image source from：aljazeera
