Trump, Iran and Israel’s Quandary
Between incoherent threats, stalled diplomacy and Netanyahu’s calculations, the risk of escalation persists even as war remains avoidable. A commentary by Nathalie Tocci
Will it be war or peace between the United States and Iran? And the Middle East? The questions abound; the answers are elusive. Confusion reigns supreme, fuelled by Washington’s inconsistency, Tehran’s assertiveness, and Israel’s contradictory actions.
The oscillations of the Trump administration on Iran are evident.
In recent weeks, the United States has reinforced around 40,000 of its military personnel in the Middle East, deploying aircraft carriers, warships, missiles, and fighter jets across the region, while announcing tariffs of 25 per cent on any state continuing to trade with Tehran, from China and India to Turkey, Pakista,n and the United Arab Emirates. Washington has threatened devastating bombing in the event of Iranian attacks and promised the arrival of reinforcements in response to any aggression.
At the same time, however, Trump has repeatedly declared his desire to avoid war and to negotiate an agreement with the Iranian regime. Then, suddenly, the tone hardens again.
The sanctions have been reinforced, repression inside Iran has intensified, and the regime has responded with a new wave of violence, among the harshest and bloodiest in the history of the Islamic Republic. Hundreds of people have been killed, thousands arrested. In the face of this repression, Washington has not reacted forcefully, limiting itself to expressions of concern.
The protests, for their part, have shown signs of fading, even if democracy movements have not disappeared. This, too, seems to encourage Washington’s willingness to talk.
Despite bellicose rhetoric, therefore, the risk of an immediate war remains low. Negotiations have not formally collapsed, and diplomacy has not been definitively abandoned. For now, the American objective remains unclear: the protection of human rights? Or a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, which would avoid resorting to force?
The nuclear question remains the central knot. From Washington’s perspective, Iran has, over the years, crossed multiple red lines, enriching uranium well beyond the limits set by the non-proliferation treaty.
The Trump administration demands the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear programme, including the halt of enrichment activities. Tehran, however, insists that it will not renounce enrichment altogether and refuses to accept conditions that would strip it of sovereign technological capabilities.
The final piece of the nuclear architecture — the New START treaty between the United States and Russia — has also been undermined, without Washington and Moscow agreeing on a credible replacement. Arms control is thus increasingly fragile, and the Iranian nuclear issue risks becoming yet another front in the erosion of global strategic stability.
Within this framework, Israel’s position is particularly complex. On the one hand, Israeli leaders have long insisted on the need to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear military capability, often advocating pre-emptive strikes. On the other hand, they are wary of the destabilising effects that a war with Iran would have across the region.
Some of Iran’s regional rivals — Oman, Qatar, and Turkey — are pushing for negotiations on the nuclear issue, preferring to treat it separately from Iran’s support for armed groups across the region. Others, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, would welcome a broader agreement. Still others appear resigned to the failure of diplomacy.
In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s calculations remain opaque. His political survival depends in part on maintaining a posture of confrontation. Yet a war with Iran would not necessarily serve Israel’s interests. Even if Israel were to succeed in decapitating the Iranian regime or destroying its missile programmes, the risk of regional destabilisation would be immense.
Negotiations could fail; war could nevertheless still be avoided. Conversely, negotiations could collapse, and war might still not materialise.
Much will depend on the unpredictable oscillations of Donald Trump. At times, he seems inclined towards dialogue, convinced that pressure can force Tehran to the table. At others, he appears ready to unleash force, perhaps believing that escalation serves his domestic political base.
In short, everything remains possible — including the opposite of everything. The oscillation continues, the confusion endures, and the Middle East remains suspended between the prospect of a new war and the slim chance of a negotiated peace.
A previous version of this article was published by the Italian daily La Stampa
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
