Memorandum: Trump gently brakes as he joins Israeli attack on Iran

President Trump is at least currently stepping on the brakes and directly participating in Israel’s attack on Iran.

On Thursday, Trump confirmed he would make a “decision whether to proceed within the next two weeks,” according to a statement read by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Trump also confirmed that “it is possible to conduct substantive negotiations with Iran in the near future,” Levitt said.

However, given the nature of Trump’s relics, the fluctuations in the Middle East, and the voices in American politics, this pause may not have been eaten up at any time, and it is already ripe to think that the United States represents Israel to deal a decisive blow to Israel.

Trump said Friday that the two-week period was the “maximum” period and will pass before he decides the issue.

This leaves a muddy overall positive – but it also gives Trump some room to maneuver.

Even his current ambiguous stance moves towards him towards a more anti-interventionist “America First” instinct.

This is a shift from earlier this week when Trump appears to be on the verge of sending U.S. troops to support Israeli attacks with some ability.

At that time, he boasted on social media that “we” had control over Iran’s sky and seemed to demand “unconditional surrender” from Iran in another full-hat post!

Since then, Trump’s vague stance reflects several different facts.

First, all Trump’s aggressiveness on the domestic stage, but has long been skeptical of foreign risk-taking. In his first presidential campaign – which began a campaign a decade ago – he criticized former President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, which was very unusual for Republican candidates.

Relatedly, Trump’s apparent flirting with the war has caused a major boost to his influential figures again (MAGA) base.

The most prominent of these is Tucker Carlson, who has been vocal about Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a long interview.

Carlson, former chief strategist Steve Bannon, and influential people watching online right, such as Theo Von, thinks the dangers of being drawn to the new Middle East war are dramatic.

Then, there is a broader American public opinion to consider. The public seems to have little appetite for direct involvement in the attack on Iran. A Washington Post poll released Wednesday found that 45% of people opposed U.S. air strikes in Iran, only 25% supported such actions, while 30% were uncertain.

Therefore, it is no surprise that Trump is resuming his long-standing game strategy.

As some ironic media reports have pointed out since Thursday’s “two weeks” announcement, this is a timeline for his past citations because it’s something that has never happened.

One example is a commitment to develop a detailed health plan that would allegedly replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed by President Obama under President Obama. He also believes that “two weeks” is a timeline and that every aspect of his war on Ukraine will become clear.

In Iran, the president can ensure that under pressure from those who think it is a rare opportunity to attack Iran, the kindness that weakens its uranium-rich capabilities, may overthrow the nation’s theocratic leadership.

This school of thought believes that the former regimes of Iranian agents and allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and Bashar Assad in former Syria have been worn out so (for the first two) or (in the case of Assad) that the situation a few years ago was stronger than today’s action.

The Trump administration has numerous supporters of a huge supporter of Israeli power.

For example, Trump’s ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has supported Israel’s decades-long occupation of the West Bank in the past, although it is considered illegal by many interpretations of international law.

Huckabee also wrote a message in recent days – Trump has officially posted this message on social media – the ambassador suggested Trump was positioned as a sacred volunteer about Israel.

Another wrinkle in Trump’s attitude is his seemingly question about whether Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Facing the Israeli reasons for the Iran attack, Gabad’s beliefs flew. But on Friday, Trump met reporters on the issue.

The reporter asked Trump what evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons and said U.S. intelligence companies reported that it had seen no such evidence.

Trump insisted: “So, my intelligence community is wrong.” “Who says that in the intelligence community?”

When the reporter called Gabbard, Trump shot backward and said, “She was wrong.”

Gabbard is a former Democratic congresswoman, known for her widespread suspicion of American interventionism.

Trump also seems to have hopes of a breakthrough in talks with Iran. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, is still involved in the issue.

At present, any major Iranian offer will lead Trump to claim that he often likes to do that his high-risk diplomatic negotiation approach has paid off.

On the other hand, it is difficult to see how any deal between the United States and Iran will appease the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Indeed, the possibility of such a deal is first regarded as one of the reasons why Netanyahu launched the Iranian attack in the first place.

Trump has spent some time at this point. But there are risks in every direction.

This memorandum is a column reported by Niall Stanage.

Source link