President Trump's comments on the conflict between Israel and Iran have been inconsistent, starting with full support for Israel's attacks, then attempting to distance himself from it, and later moving closer again.

This ambiguity has exacerbated the uncertainty amid escalating tensions.

In the meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that these attacks were "fully coordinated" with the United States.

So, what are the considerations for Trump? More importantly, what options does he have?

1. Yielding to Netanyahu's pressure and escalating the situation

When Israel's missiles struck Tehran on Thursday (June 12), Trump threatened Iran's leaders, saying that his Israeli allies would be equipped with American ammunition for "even more severe" attacks.

We know Trump's ultimate goal. Like Netanyahu, he believes that Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons. The key difference is that he prefers to achieve this goal through an agreement between the U.S. and Iran (a path that also aligns with his self-proclaimed image as a world-class negotiator).

However, his stance on how to achieve this goal has been inconsistent, sometimes emphasizing threats of force and other times pushing for diplomacy. Last week, he even said in the same sentence that an Israeli attack on Iran might help reach an agreement or "derail" it.

Sometimes, his unpredictability is explained by supporters as strategic - the so-called "madman theory." This theory was once used to describe Trump's negotiation strategy, suggesting that by creating uncertainty, he forces opponents (or even allies) to concede. This theory can be traced back to President Richard Nixon during the Cold War.

Some of Trump's advisors and supporters back the "maximum pressure" version of the "madman theory" when it comes to Iran. They believe that the threat will ultimately work because they think Iran doesn't genuinely want to negotiate (despite signing the Obama-led nuclear deal in 2015, which Trump later withdrew from).

Netanyahu continues to pressure Trump to take a military route rather than a diplomatic one, and the U.S. president - despite his repeated desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize - may ultimately choose to enforce his tough threats against Tehran.

Israel may also quietly increase pressure on the U.S. to participate in the action to complete the task. The U.S. possesses the penetrating bombs that Israel believes can destroy Iran's Fordow underground uranium enrichment facility.

As tensions escalate, Republican hawks in Congress are increasing pressure on Trump, who have long advocated regime change in Iran.

Trump might also believe that such pressure will force Iran to return to negotiations from a weaker position. But the fact is that Iran was already prepared to negotiate, and the sixth round of talks was originally scheduled for Sunday in Oman with Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff.

Now, this meeting has been canceled.

2. Middle ground - maintaining the status quo

So far, Trump has reiterated that the U.S. is not involved in Israel's attacks.

Escalating the conflict poses extremely high risks for Trump and could impact his historical legacy. The U.S. Navy destroyer and ground missile defense systems are already assisting Israel in defending against Iran's retaliatory attacks.

Some of Trump's advisors within the National Security Council might advise him to avoid taking any actions that could further provoke Israel's attacks on Iran, especially given some Iranian missiles have already breached the joint Israeli-American defense and caused casualties.

Netanyahu now argues that targeting Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei will end, rather than escalate, the conflict.

But an anonymous U.S. official revealed to the media over the weekend that Trump clearly opposes such actions.

3. Heeding the voice of "MAGA" and making concessions

One major political consideration for Trump is his domestic support.

Most Republicans in Congress still firmly support Israel, including continued military aid. Many openly support Israel's attacks on Iran.

However, some key voices within Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement are now completely opposed to the traditional "hardline" support for Israel.

In recent days, they have questioned why the U.S. should risk being drawn into a Middle Eastern war, which contradicts Trump's foreign policy commitment to "America First."

Tucker Carlson, a Trump supporter, sharply criticized the government last Friday, accusing it of lying about not participating in the attack and advocating that the U.S. should "abandon Israel."

He said that Netanyahu's "warlike government" is trying to drag the U.S. military into war.

Carlson wrote: "Participating in this war is like flipping the bird to the millions of voters who supported a truly America-first administration."

Similarly, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Trump loyalist and member of Congress, posted on X: "Anyone wanting the U.S. to fully engage in the Israeli-Iranian war is not America First (MAGA)."

This is actually a significant weakness for Trump.

It puts greater pressure on him to maintain a distance between the U.S. and Israel's offensive, and publicly, it seems he has responded accordingly.

The debate within the MAGA camp reached its peak over the weekend, with Trump posting on social media that he and Russian President Putin jointly called for an end to the war. By Sunday, he said Iran and Israel should reach an agreement and added: "The U.S. is not involved in attacking Iran."

Iran has already issued threats that if the U.S. assists Israel's defense, as currently seen, it will attack U.S. bases in the Middle East.

Any risk of U.S. casualties could rapidly amplify the isolationist voices within MAGA, further pressuring Trump to retreat and urging Netanyahu to halt the offensive sooner.

Source: BBC

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7516805192344650279/

Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views, and you are welcome to express your attitude by clicking the "Top/Downvote" button below.