 |
|
The article details Israel’s recent attack on Iran, claiming the operation was launched with the expectation, if not absolute certainty, that the United States would ultimately become involved. This assumption is now being tested as President Trump weighs the decision to join the assault. According to Israeli officials, it was unthinkable that Prime Minister Netanyahu would have ordered the attack without Trump's tacit approval, citing Trump's consistent expressions of his preferences regarding Iran. The Israeli narrative suggests a timeline originating with a letter Trump sent to Ayatollah Khamenei in March, setting a 60-day ultimatum for Iran to accept stringent constraints on its nuclear program. This deadline, starting on April 12th with US-Iranian negotiations in Oman, seemingly aligned with Netanyahu's decision to postpone Operation Rising Lion, which had been initially planned for April. The attack was then executed on the 61st day of Trump's calendar. As the deadline neared, the US took precautionary measures by withdrawing non-essential personnel from Middle Eastern embassies. However, Trump’s seeming discouragement of an immediate attack, citing potential disruption to upcoming negotiations, remains ambiguous. It is unclear whether this was a strategic feint to lull Iran into complacency or a genuine request for a brief extension. Regardless, the advanced planning and coordination of the Israeli operation, involving pre-positioned Mossad commandos and drones, made any further delay impractical and potentially dangerous. The diplomatic path was likely untenable from the outset, with Trump maintaining his unwavering demand that Iran permanently cease uranium enrichment, now a primary objective of Israel’s military action. Following the initiation of the attack, Trump swiftly voiced his support, utilizing his Truth Social platform to emphasize the missed opportunity for Iran to negotiate within the 60-day ultimatum. This 'second chance' appeared to be an invitation for Iran to concede to Trump's demands, leveraging Israel's military success to secure a diplomatic victory for the US president. As Israel’s battlefield progress continues, Trump has seemingly grown more amenable to a military resolution, expressing disinterest in further negotiations and even asserting control over Iranian airspace. Israel now anticipates Trump’s embrace of the operation, particularly as the risks of failure diminish. The article highlights the dependence on US involvement for achieving a decisive conclusion to the conflict. The need for US support is emphasized, particularly in targeting Iran's heavily fortified Fordow enrichment facility. Only the US Air Force possesses the necessary penetrating bombs to effectively breach the facility's defenses, though even with these powerful munitions, success is not guaranteed. The article further underscores the growing sentiment within Israel for US intervention, alongside concerns about Netanyahu's contingency plans if Trump remains on the sidelines. The pleas from Israeli commentators for Trump to join the operation reflect a deep-seated belief that US involvement is crucial for securing a favorable outcome and safeguarding Israel's interests. The success of the entire operation hinges on the United States taking a leading role, and failure to do so could have dire consequences.
The Israeli perspective, as presented in the article, paints a picture of calculated coordination with the US, where Israel took the initiative with a clear understanding of potential US involvement. This reliance on US support is a recurring theme in Israeli foreign policy, particularly when dealing with perceived existential threats like Iran's nuclear program. The assumption that the US would inevitably be drawn into the conflict is not explicitly stated as a formal agreement but rather inferred from Trump's previous statements and actions. The timing of the attack, coinciding with the expiration of Trump's self-imposed deadline for Iran to comply with nuclear restrictions, further reinforces this perception. However, Trump's seemingly contradictory statements, initially discouraging the attack and later embracing it, introduce an element of uncertainty. This ambiguity could be interpreted as a deliberate tactic to keep Iran off balance or a reflection of Trump's impulsive decision-making style. The article suggests that Israel is gambling on Trump's desire for a major foreign policy victory, believing that he will ultimately seize the opportunity to claim credit for dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities. However, this strategy carries significant risks, as it depends on Trump's continued support and willingness to escalate the conflict. If Trump were to withdraw his support or opt for a more restrained approach, Israel could find itself isolated and facing a protracted and potentially devastating war with Iran. The article also raises questions about the long-term consequences of the attack, regardless of US involvement. Even if successful in neutralizing Iran's current nuclear program, the attack could trigger a regional arms race and further destabilize the already volatile Middle East. Furthermore, the attack could embolden hardliners in Iran and undermine any prospects for future diplomatic engagement. The heavy price that Israeli citizens are paying with their lives and property highlights the high stakes involved in this conflict, making the decision to attack Iran a momentous and potentially irreversible one.
The reliance on the US is a double-edged sword. While US military might is undoubtedly crucial for achieving Israel's objectives, it also subjects Israel to the whims and priorities of the US president. Trump's unpredictable behavior and transactional approach to foreign policy make him an unreliable partner, and Israel risks becoming a pawn in his political games. The article implies a certain desperation in Israel's appeals for US intervention, with commentators explicitly urging Trump to 'save us from ourselves.' This sentiment reflects a deep-seated insecurity and a recognition that Israel cannot ultimately defeat Iran without US assistance. The article also highlights the domestic political considerations that may be influencing Netanyahu's decision-making. With his own political future uncertain, Netanyahu may be seeking to rally public support by projecting strength and decisiveness in the face of a perceived Iranian threat. The attack on Iran could be seen as a calculated gamble to secure his political survival, even if it entails significant risks for the country as a whole. The narrative presented in the article is largely one-sided, reflecting the perspective of Israeli officials and commentators. It is important to consider alternative perspectives, particularly those of Iran and the US, to gain a more complete understanding of the situation. Iran, for example, is likely to view the attack as an act of aggression and a violation of international law. The US may have its own reasons for cautiously approaching the conflict, including concerns about triggering a wider regional war and maintaining its global strategic interests. Ultimately, the decision to intervene in the conflict rests with President Trump, and his choice will have profound consequences for the region and the world. The article serves as a reminder of the complex and interconnected nature of international relations and the dangers of relying on assumptions in the face of uncertainty. It underscores the need for careful diplomacy and strategic planning to avoid unintended escalation and to secure a lasting peace.
Source: Israel’s assumption US would get drawn into Iran war is being put to the test