The administration of US President Donald Trump is eliciting conflicting signals about whether it still supports an international agreement to end Iran’s nuclear program.
It has publicly backed a negotiated agreement, and US and Iranian negotiators had planned to meet once more this week. Trump reaffirmed his desire to work with a diplomatic resolution in a Truth Social post as recently as Thursday.
Trump later claimed that he had given Iran a 60-day deadline to reach an agreement and that the deadline had passed as Israel began its attacks on Iran. Trump had been urging “Israel and Iran to reach a deal,” and they did with his assistance by Sunday.
Trump issued a more ominous warning on Monday as he prepared to leave the Group of Seven summit in Canada early: “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran” and declared that Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons. Later, the US president denied rumors that he had arrived in Washington, DC early to negotiate a ceasefire, stating that it was “for something much bigger than that.”
Analysts are debating Trump’s ambiguous statements about the true scope of US involvement and intentions in the Israel-Iran conflict.
Trump’s wink and nod are in discussion.
Trump has denied that the US participated in the strikes. He wrote on Sunday that “the U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran tonight.”
Trump’s message was clear, according to Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the US-based Arms Control Association. While diplomacy was in full swing, I believe President Trump has been very explicit about his opposition to using military force against Iran. And reports suggest that he attacked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, she said.
According to Davenport, what’s more likely is that “Israel was concerned that diplomacy would succeed, that it would mean a deal” and that it did not think [this]would be in line with its goals and interests regarding Iran.”
According to Richard Nephew, a professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, Trump’s continued pursuit of a deal had troubled Israel.
Nephew, who served as the US National Security Council’s director from 2011 to 2013, said, “I think it’s the consistency that’s actually been the issue.”
However, St. Andrews University in Scotland’s Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history, disagreed.
“The US was aware,” They must have been aware of the timing, he said, so a wink is appropriate, he said, “so even if the specific timing did surprise them.”
Israel must take the lead and should do this on their own, he said at the same time, according to the US.
Trump might be drawn into the conflict, but perhaps not?
The above-ground portion of Iran’s Natanz facility is thought to have been destroyed by Israel. The facility’s uranium has been enriched to a 60 percent purity, which is significantly higher than the 3.67 percent required for nuclear power but below the 90 percent purity required for an atomic bomb. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Israeli strike’s power loss may have also affected Natanz’s underground enrichment facility.
However, according to the IAEA’s assessment, Israel did not harm Iran’s other mountain-buried uranium enrichment facility, which also contains 60 percent of purity.
According to Davenport, “It’s likely that Israel would need US assistance if it actually wanted to penetrate some of these underground facilities,” referring to the 13, 600 kg (30, 000lb) Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the largest US conventional bomb.
You could likely damage or destroy some of these facilities with repeated strikes, according to Davenport, noting that Washington “has not transferred that bomb to Israel”.
Israel would require US weapons to finish its stated goal of destroying Iran’s nuclear program, according to Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the US-based Stimson Center.
Nephew, for one, did not discount the possibility that something might occur.
Trump is well aware of this, but he enjoys supporting losers. He said, “To the extent that he views the Israelis as winners right now, that is the justification for his continued support of his position and why we have a wink [to Israel],” he said.
The US ordered the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz to sail there on Friday after flying a large number of midair refueling planes there. It announced on Tuesday that it would be sending more warplanes to the area.
Ansari believes that Iran’s decision to step down could be influenced by the success of Israel’s initial attacks, suggesting that “Trump is tempted to join in just to get some of the glory.”
Although I believe even the real threat of an American attack will bring the Iranians to the table, Ansari said, “It may well be that the US joins in on an attack on Fordow.” They can accept the United States with honor, but they can’t Israel, even though they may not.
US Senator Tim Kaine, who was skeptical of American involvement, signed a resolution enacting a war powers resolution on Monday that would require the US Congress to authorize any military action against Iran.
To start a war with Iran is not in our national security interest, according to Kaine, citing the absolute necessity of the situation.
Force versus diplomacy
Obama chose a diplomatic approach that led to the creation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 because he did not think a military solution was attractive or feasible for Iran’s nuclear program. In accordance with that agreement, the IAEA was required to closely watch Iran’s nuclear activities to ensure that only the highest levels of uranium production were achieved.
Trump indirectly stoked the military option, according to Nephew and Davenport, when, at Israel’s request, he pulled the US out of the JCPOA in 2018.
Iran declared that it would refine uranium to 4.5 percent purity in 2021 and increase its production to 4.5 percent in 2021. The IAEA claimed to have discovered uranium particles at Fordow with an 83.7 percent purity in 2023.
President Joe Biden and President Trump both had options to the JCPOA in their first presidential campaigns.
Nephew remarked, “Setting the JCPOA on fire contributed directly to where we are today.” He claimed that “trying to find a military path rather than a diplomatic one to stop a nuclear program contributes to a proliferation path” because some nations claim that “the only way I can protect myself is if I go down this path.”
Even the regime change in Tehran, as Netanyahu has demanded, won’t solve the issue, according to Davenport, an expert on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply