According to analysts, US President Donald Trump is making an advanced bombing of Iran and then making quick progress in reducing tensions.
But it remains to be seen whether Washington can navigate a clean exit from the deadly imbroglio, which has the potential to erupt into a large-scale regional confrontation.
Analysts question the viability of the US military intervention despite Trump’s decision to steer clear of a wider conflict.
Israel and the US launched a military offensive against Iran early on Sunday, sending B-2 stealth aircraft to three of the country’s nuclear sites.
Trump has framed the military action as part of Washington’s long-term goal of preventing Tehran from building a nuclear weapon. Iran fired missiles at the US’s Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on Monday, prompting a retaliatory strike due to the bombing.
Trump has since declared a ceasefire with all parties and claimed he was able to “stop the war.” He credited the bombing with bringing “everyone together”.
However, some media outlets have questioned Trump’s claims that he was successful in destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. Trump has also criticized Israel and Iran for their early ceasefire violations.
“As soon as we made the deal,]Israel] came out and dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before”, Trump told reporters in an unvarnished moment on the White House lawn on Tuesday.
“Practically, there are two nations that have been fighting for so long and so hard that they are ignorant of what they are doing.”
rhetoric is hidden behind it.
Despite the rocky first hours after the ceasefire announcement, Israeli and Iranian leaders appear to have fallen in line with Trump’s messaging about peace.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office responded to a request from the US president by promising to stop further attacks. His administration claimed that Israel had “achieved all of the war’s goals.”
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, meanwhile, hailed his country’s “heroic resistance”. He claimed that Iran would follow the terms of the truce and that diplomacy would help it advance its goals.
However, experts caution that future challenges may be concealed by the rhetoric of diplomacy and peace.
Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a think tank, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s harsh words for the latest attack reveal his increasingly public frustrations with Israel, a longtime US ally.
They might also suggest that it might be more difficult than it appears to get the US out of Israel’s conflict with Iran.
Trump is starting to understand how deeply America and Israel’s interests in all of this conflict conflict, Parsi told Al Jazeera. “I think it’s crucial to understand that Israel does not want an end to the fighting,” Parsi said.
Israeli officials have repeatedly signalled that their military operations against Iran are aimed at prompting wider regime change, a goal Trump appeared to endorse last week but has since disavowed.
Eyal Zamir, the Israeli military’s chief of staff, confirmed to the media on Tuesday that Israel had “concluded a significant chapter,” but that the Iranian campaign is still ongoing.
According to Parsi, that viewpoint may differ from Trump’s. Nevertheless, Parsi believes Trump has shown more willingness to tell Israel “no” than many of his presidential predecessors.
Trump “has not been able to sustain that ‘no’ in a productive way,” Parsi continued, citing the US president’s actions in Israel’s Gaza war.
He pressed Israel to end the Gaza ceasefire, but he relented and let Netanyahu leave and never rejoin phase two of it. If he wants to deal with Iran, he’s going to have to make sure he does not repeat that mistake”.
Parsi noted that Trump has demonstrated “remarkable nimbleness” in his capacity to engage US military forces in international combat and then withdraw from them. For instance, Trump launched 45 days of airstrikes against the Yemen-based Houthi armed group earlier this year, but by May he had declared a ceasefire.
Risk of a ‘ quagmire ‘
Iran has been portrayed as eager to find an alternative to the conflict, for its part. Tehran would likely take any actions that might re-enter the conflict, according to several analysts who spoke to Al Jazeera.
The US and Iran had been in talks to scale back Tehran’s nuclear programme. However, the negotiations had been derailed by Israel’s initial surprise attack on June 13.
Iran is still open to negotiating, according to Negar Mortazavi, a non-resident fellow at the nonprofit Center for International Policy.
The country has long denied seeking a nuclear weapon and has instead framed its efforts as aimed at developing civilian energy infrastructure.
Mortazavi told Al Jazeera, “Iran wants to have a civilian nuclear program.” And I believe there is a very strong path and the possibility of a deal if Trump accepts that.
Trump, however, has been vague about what he may accept. In a number of statements that didn’t seem to distinguish between nuclear enrichment for civilian energy purposes and for weapons, he described the US attack on Sunday as the destruction of “all nuclear facilities &, capability” in Iran.
His statements conflicted with a classified report that was leaked to US media and claimed Iran’s nuclear program had been damaged but could be rebuilt in a matter of months.
“IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES”, Trump wrote in one of the messages on Tuesday.
Mortazavi thinks Iran will have no choice but to resume negotiations, even if Trump asserts his maximist position and opposes all uranium enrichment.
Mortazavi compared the US and Iran, saying that “they might be able to meet somewhere in the middle.” She added that one possible compromise would be to have , a “consortium” of regional countries that would monitor a civilian nuclear programme.
She explained that “the alternative to military conflict and war” would just be devastating for many more civilians and could lead to a quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan.
According to Sina Azodi, an assistant professor of Middle Eastern politics at George Washington University, Trump’s announcement on Monday may provide insight into how he plans to approach any further negotiations.
Trump started his statement by writing, “CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE”! Then he said, “God bless the world, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD bless the world” to close the message.
A US president’s message, according to Azodi, was unprecedented, appearing to place Iran in the same position as Israel since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. He noted that Trump appeared to be setting a “conciliatory” tone.
On the economic front, that sentiment was expressed as well. Trump stated on Tuesday that, despite US sanctions, such trade could still be impeded by US sanctions, China could continue to purchase oil from Iran.
That, too, was interpreted by many analysts as a goodwill offering to officials in Tehran, as Trump seeks a resolution to the conflict.
Trump wants to be the one who used force, showed strength, and put an end to the conflict right away, Azodi told Al Jazeera.
He “does not want a larger conflict in the area,” he said, “because it’s possible he would need to engage in additional military force.”
Any further military involvement, analysts say, could inflame tensions within Trump’s base, as many of his “America First” followers oppose overseas military action.
Some people believe Trump could split the vote, satisfying the Republican Party’s war hawks while praising those opposed to foreign intervention with his strike-and-exit strategy.
Given his style, Azodi said, “It’s impossible to predict what will come next.” “One day, he’s on a good side. He becomes enraged and belligerent one day.
long-term success
Whether Trump will continue his calls for peace after Sunday’s attack remains unclear.
As journalists continue to question the effectiveness of US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities like Fordow, the US president has been on the defensive.
“That area is under rock,” he said. That place is demolished”, Trump told journalists on Tuesday.
He apologized by denying the mission’s success by contacting news outlets. He claimed that “all of it is fake news.” “Those pilots hit their targets. These targets had been eliminated.
Azodi noted that the Trump administration’s claims that the US strikes are insufficient are false. Evidence has surfaced that Iran relocated much of its uranium stockpile in the lead-up to the attack.
What is clear, according to Azodi, is that striking a facility while using the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s (IAEA) security is a violation of international law.
Iran might respond to Iran’s threat to renounce its nuclear weapons agreement, releasing it from international obligations that would stifle any nuclear weapons development.
“In the short term, yes, Trump can come and brag about]the US strikes] on Truth Social, saying that he ‘ obliterated ‘ the Iranian nuclear programme”, Azodi said.
You can’t bomb the knowledge, though, in the long run. Fissile material from Iran appears to have survived. And now Iranians have a lot of motive for withdrawing from the NPT”.
