Donald Trump has long tried to portray himself as a “president of peace” and an “anti-war leader.” In his campaign speeches, he has repeatedly blamed his Democratic and Republican predecessors for dragging the United States into unnecessary foreign conflicts. He took pride in the fact that under his first term, the U.S. did not engage in any new wars. For the escalation in Ukraine and the Middle East, he consistently pointed the finger at Joe Biden’s “weakness.” According to Trump, had he been in the White House, neither the Russian invasion of Ukraine nor the Hamas attack on Israel would have happened.
But with Israel’s ongoing military campaign against Iran, Trump is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain his image as a neutral peacemaker. Israel, Washington’s closest ally in the Middle East, has launched large-scale strikes on Iranian infrastructure — targeting not only nuclear and missile facilities but seemingly aiming to destabilize or even overthrow the theocratic regime in Tehran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel was “clearing the way” for the Iranian people to attain their “freedom.” The Israeli ambassador to Washington echoed this, saying attacks would continue “until the objectives are achieved.”
“The U.S. Had Nothing to Do with It”?
Amid escalating violence, Trump has been trying to keep his distance. He insists that the Israeli operation is a “unilateral action.” Even after strikes hit Iranian oil depots and energy infrastructure, Trump took to his platform Truth Social to write: “The USA had nothing to do with the attack on Iran last night.” At the same time, he warned that any Iranian attack on American targets would be met with “full force” and “like never before.”
Tehran, however, sees things differently. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the U.S. of being complicit in the attacks, stating at a press conference: “We have solid evidence of support from U.S. troops in the region.” According to Araghchi, the United States is a “partner” in this war and bears responsibility for it.
In an attempt to prevent further escalation, Trump again assumed the role of mediator. He urged both Israel and Iran to pursue a diplomatic solution: “Many phone calls and meetings are taking place right now. I’m doing a lot,” he wrote on Truth Social. Araghchi signaled that Iran was open to an agreement that would ensure it does not obtain nuclear weapons, but firmly stated that Iran would not give up its “nuclear rights,” including uranium enrichment.
Can Israel Win Without U.S. Involvement?
Trump is banking on Israeli military pressure to force Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program. But a critical question remains: can Israel achieve its objectives alone? Israeli intelligence has managed to eliminate leading Iranian scientists and cause substantial damage to facilities like the one in Natanz. However, there are deeper targets — most notably the Fordow facility, buried under a mountain. Experts argue Israel would need American bunker-busting bombs and bombers to destroy it.
As U.S. arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis noted on X: “If Israel has no plan to take out Fordow, I don’t see how any of this is worth it.” According to Axios, Israel is currently pressuring the U.S. government to join a strike on Fordow. Without American participation, Israel has no real “exit strategy,” wrote the Israeli daily Haaretz.
Trump’s Supporters Are Deeply Divided
This war is exposing a major fault line within Trump’s voter base. His supporters are torn between isolationists and interventionists. One of the loudest voices against the war is former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who wrote in his newsletter: “Trump is complicit in Israel’s war against Iran. This is not America’s fight. Getting involved would be a middle finger to millions of voters.” He added that there is another option: “Drop Israel. Let them fight their own wars.”
On the opposite end, traditional hawks like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham are “all in” on U.S. involvement: “If Iran doesn’t listen to President Trump, the U.S. should go all out to help Israel finish the job,” Graham wrote on X.
Interestingly, Carlson and Graham are just as divided on Ukraine. Carlson defends Putin and opposes aid to Kyiv, while Graham has long pushed Trump to ramp up weapons deliveries. These conflicts are linked: Iran has supplied Russia with drones and missiles used in Ukraine. If Israel were to achieve regime change in Iran, it would severely hurt Putin’s war strategy — something that would not sit well in the Kremlin.
Putin and Trump: A Complicated Relationship
This puts Trump in yet another foreign policy bind. He has made it clear that rapprochement with Russia is one of his priorities. But a successful Israeli war against Iran would undermine a key Russian ally. On Saturday, Vladimir Putin reportedly called Trump to condemn Israel’s military actions, warning of “unpredictable consequences.” According to Trump, Putin offered to mediate the conflict and called for a solution acceptable to all parties. After their call, Trump said that both he and Putin want the Iran-Israel war to end, and added: “I told him that his war in Ukraine should end too.”
Which Way Will Trump Go?
As The Economist noted, unlike in Ukraine — where U.S. involvement remained limited — Trump now faces a pressing dilemma in the Middle East. If he “goes all in,” he might shorten the conflict. But he also risks dragging the U.S. into another “forever war.” If he stays out, he could lose the trust of both hawkish Republicans and key allies like Israel.
According to NZZ, the longer the Israel-Iran war drags on, the more likely the U.S. will be pulled into direct conflict. And for Donald Trump, that could turn into not only a foreign policy crisis but a decisive moment in his re-election campaign.
This article was prepared based on materials published by Neue Zürcher Zeitung. The author does not claim authorship of the original text but presents their interpretation of the content for informational purposes.
The original article can be found at the following link: Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
All rights to the original text belong to Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
