“We remain committed to a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear issue!” declared President Donald Trump on June 12. Just hours later, Israel launched a wave of strikes against Iran, and the conflict has since escalated dramatically.
In response, Iran fired waves of ballistic missiles and drones at Israeli cities. Israeli warplanes have struck Tehran’s air-defense systems for the second consecutive night and attacked nuclear sites in Fordow and Isfahan, claiming to have inflicted “significant damage.” The U.S. is already assisting Israel militarily, including intercepting Iranian projectiles. The big question now is: how deep is Washington willing to go? Some prominent Republicans are calling for decisive action.
On June 13, Senator Lindsey Graham issued a forceful statement: if diplomacy fails, he “strongly” believes it is in America’s national security interest “to go all-in and help Israel finish the job.”
Intelligence, Talks, and Isolationism: What Trump Knew
According to The Economist, Donald Trump had prior warning of the impending escalation. His foreign policy team — divided between hawks and isolationists — gathered at Camp David on June 8 to assess the growing Iran crisis. Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on June 9, 12, and again on June 13 after the attacks.
On June 11, the U.S. partially evacuated its embassy in Iraq. While Israel was preparing its military operation, the U.S. continued to pursue diplomacy with Tehran — another round of talks was scheduled for June 15 in Oman, led by White House envoy Steve Witkoff. But momentum had already stalled. Israel, traditionally opposed to any nuclear deal with Iran, likely saw this as the last chance to act before any agreement could be reached.
After the first successful strikes, Trump retroactively gave them his full endorsement. “I think it’s been excellent. We gave them a chance and they didn’t take it,” he said in an interview. In another, he boasted: “I always knew the date.”
Military Involvement Without Full-Scale War?
The U.S. military is already involved. American air defense systems helped intercept Iranian attacks — on June 13, both land-based batteries and a U.S. Navy destroyer shot down Iranian drones and missiles. Central Command (CENTCOM) is reportedly assisting Israel in tracking Iranian ballistic missile launches using infrared satellite surveillance.
Still, the U.S. is not positioned for a full-scale war. In mid-May, one of two aircraft carriers was withdrawn from the region. The B-2 stealth bombers previously deployed to Diego Garcia were recently replaced with older B-52s. Trump continues to hope for a diplomatic solution. On social media, he wrote: “Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire.”
But those diplomatic channels are now closing. On June 14, according to The Economist, an Iranian official dismissed U.S.-Iran negotiations as “meaningless.”
A New Phase: Will Israel Pull the U.S. In Deeper?
The U.S. is accelerating its military presence. Destroyers are rushing toward the Middle East. The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz canceled a planned visit to Vietnam, possibly en route to Iran’s vicinity.
The U.S. Air Force could begin refueling Israeli jets midair, extending their operational time over Iranian territory. So far, Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure have been limited. Sources say Israel likely lacks the capability to destroy the deeply buried Fordow enrichment plant using conventional bombs, though it may be able to block tunnels and ventilation shafts. That’s why Israel may be hoping to persuade the U.S. to join the campaign with heavy bombers capable of carrying 30,000-pound bunker-busting munitions — the only weapons able to inflict real damage on such hardened targets.
Iranian Retaliation: A Trap for America?
There’s another danger: the U.S. could be pulled into the conflict not by choice, but through Iranian retaliation. Tehran, with limited ability to strike Israel directly, may opt to target American assets in the region in hopes of intimidating Trump. Iran could also escalate attacks via its proxies — on shipping in the Red Sea (as the Houthis have done) or on oil facilities in the Gulf, which could cause a surge in oil prices and global instability.
If Israel were to succeed in toppling the Iranian regime — a goal Netanyahu openly stated on June 13, claiming the strikes were “clearing the path” for regime change — the aftermath could be catastrophic. Power vacuums and chaos would likely emerge, and Washington may be forced to intervene to protect its interests and regional allies.
Just a Month Ago — A Different Vision
Just a month ago, during a visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump spoke of a very different vision for the Middle East: a “golden age” defined by “commerce, not chaos.” He condemned Western interventionism and vowed that future American policy in the region would prioritize trade and investment.
Now, as The Economist notes, joining Israel’s strikes could mark a “transformative moment” — hastening that vision by ending the influence of a decaying regime that has destabilized the region for decades. Yet history has repeatedly shown that the Middle East has a way of destroying even the most utopian of American plans.
Domestic Divide: Support and Skepticism
At home, Trump enjoys broad Republican support for aiding Israel. On June 13, House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on social media: “Israel IS right — and has a right — to defend itself!” But the longer the conflict drags on, the more dissent may emerge among the MAGA base, which is generally hostile to foreign entanglements.
Some are already circulating an old clip of Trump criticizing Obama’s Iran policy: “Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate.” That ironic quote is now coming back to haunt him.
Trump faces a severe dilemma: if he goes “all-in” and helps Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, the conflict might end faster. But doing so could also escalate the war dramatically and entangle the United States in yet another endless conflict.
This article was prepared based on materials published by The Economist. 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: The Economist.
All rights to the original text belong to The Economist.
