As he was boarding Air Force One on Tuesday, US President Donald Trump told a reporter that Iran was (and possibly still is) ‘very close’ to having a nuclear weapon and must be stopped from getting one – an assessment Israel shares and has used to legitimize what it refers to as its ‘preemptive’ strikes against Iran.
Put aside for a moment that Trump contradicted his own intelligence community, whose director, Tulsi Gabbard, testified only three months ago that ‘Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003’.
Trump could be playing mind games with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to try to coerce him into making concessions. But if not, his words suggest he now thinks Iran’s current nuclear status is an imminent danger that must be addressed urgently.
If this is the case, why is the US subcontracting a major national security issue to a third party, let alone one which doesn’t have the capabilities to finish the job (Israel can’t destroy Iran’s nuclear facility in Fordow without heavy US weapons) and has shown no interest in a diplomatic solution?
This approach appears to be inconsistent with Trump’s own objectives – or at least those he has previously stated – and risks the US being dragged along by Israel’s actions rather than leading. It’s as irresponsible as it is dangerous. A course correction is urgently needed.
The importance of initiative
When a nation is at war or contemplating military intervention to deal with an imminent threat, it is vitally important that it seize the initiative and control its own destiny, narrative, and to the extent possible, flow of events. Confusion, unpredictability, and inconsistency are the enemies of success at war. There must be a crystal-clear match between policy – the goals you wish to achieve – and strategy – how you envision achieving them.
Like Israel, the US categorically opposes Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. It has held that position since 2003, across multiple presidencies. But this end state is about the only thing that’s clear right now about Trump’s handling of the Iran problem.
Washington says it has not been directly involved in the Israeli strikes, but it is unclear whether Trump gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the green light to attack Iran or not. In the run up to the strikes, Trump had been pursuing a deal with Iran aimed at curbing its nuclear programme. He previously indicated he didn’t want Israel to attack Iran because it ‘would blow’ the deal, but also said ‘strikes could very well happen.’ Once Israel attacked, he told media he ‘always knew the date’ and suggested Iran had missed a 60-day deadline on negotiations.
Since then, Trump has repeatedly stated that ‘Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,’ but as of yet has not said he has involved US forces directly in the strikes or allowed Israel to use the US bombs needed to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.
This has created a situation where the US is not in control of an important foreign policy issue that has now taken on an escalatory trajectory. Washington appears to have let a third party (even if Israel is a longstanding and close partner) be in the driver’s seat and dictate the tempo on the issue – despite its massive repercussions for US interests, international security, and the future of the global non-proliferation regime.
Washington’s long-term military and political support for Israel more broadly means it risks being perceived, especially by Arab partners in the region, as being implicated in the conflict – but without the agency to shape the outcome in its favour, protect its reputation and diplomatic standing, and defend its interests. A wise ‘America First’ approach requires effective leadership, sound strategy, and forceful action to safeguard US interests. Instead, the US is at risk of being dragged into a war that it didn’t start.