A few hours before the Israeli strikes against Iran, Donald Trump publicly displayed a prudent position, warning against a climbing that was likely to “explode” the nuclear negotiations in progress between Washington and Tehran. However, shortly after the start of the bombing, Trump suddenly changed his tone, describing these “excellent” attacks. A spectacular flip-flop which raises questions about the role played by Trump in this rise in tensions, and the possible instrumentalization of his communication in the perspective of a more direct involvement of the United States.
A turnaround in a few hours
Before the strikes, Trump was worried, explaining that he did not want “Israel to go” because it would compromise discussions on Iranian nuclear. But once the bombings have been launched, he hastened to salute these military actions as a strategic success, rejecting responsibility for Iran which he accuses of refusing an agreement proposed by Washington to stop the enrichment of uranium.
On his Truth Social platform, Trump even announced that other strikes, “even more brutal”, could follow. He posed these future bombings as a pressure intended to force Iran to return to the negotiating table. This discourse clearly shows an unstable balance between two contradictory tendencies: on the one hand, a diplomatic posture promising peace, on the other, a warlike inclination promoting the use of force.
Between diplomacy and bellicism: the republican dilemma
This double game also reflects internal divisions within the Republican Party. A party hopes Trump will play this peaceful president whom he had promised during his inauguration in 2017, ending the American wars abroad. The other, led by the “war hawks”, pleads for a more aggressive involvement, in particular direct strikes against Iran, threatening perceived by many as imminent.
Trump seems to navigate between these influences according to what seems to him the most advantageous in the short term. This fluctuating positioning feeds confusion on the American strategy in the Middle East and questions the sincerity of its pacifist claims.
Israel relies on American involvement
Even more worrying, Israel is visibly counting on the dynamics that this conflict could create to lead the United States in a broader confrontation. Tel Aviv knows that Washington has a historical and strategic obligation to guarantee its security, and therefore an Israeli attack on Iran could become a catalyst for an official entry of the American army into the conflict.
The stake is major: if hostilities extend, the risk of an extended regional war increases considerably, with a domino effect involving other countries and non -state actors. For Israel, prolonged tension with Iran is not only a defense question, but also a way to push Washington to intervene fully.
The recent past: a chess lesson
We must remember the historical context to better understand the current issues. During his swearing in for a second term in January, Trump undertook to “arrest all wars” and leave behind an inheritance of “peaceful and unifying”. However, less than a year later, missiles fly over the Middle East again, threatening to plunge the region back into an open conflict likely to cause American troops.
The previous American military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are still very present in the memories. These conflicts caused thousands of American soldiers to death, left hundreds of thousands of injured, and generated lasting trauma. In addition, these wars have often been deemed counterproductive, promoting the emergence of hostile entities, such as the Islamic State, and strengthening the regional influence of Iran.
In Iraq, the “Nation Building” effort led to the installation of a pro-Iranian government and the rise of destabilizing armed groups. In Afghanistan, American military failure is obvious: after twenty years of presence, withdrawal led to the return to power of the Taliban in 2021, marking a bitter failure.
Trump capitalizes on the rejection of wars
During his campaign for the 2024 presidential election, Trump largely exploited the dissatisfaction aroused by these military interventions. He regularly said that with him at the White House, the fall of the Afghan government would never have taken place, qualifying this withdrawal of “humiliating” for the United States.
He did not fail to attack his democratic opponents, in particular Kamala Harris, whom he accuses of allying with the “war hawks” like Liz Cheney, which he describes as a supporter of military intervention in the Middle East. For Trump, Cheney’s past in Bush administration symbolizes everything he rejects: interminable wars that, according to him, have only “killing millions of people”.
A risk of American trap in a new conflict
However, Trump’s ambivalent position in the face of Israeli strikes on Iran raises major concern: the one that the United States is once again “trained” in a war of which they do not master the origins or the outcome.
The close relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv, combined with the pressure of republican circles favorable to hardening with Iran, notably Senator Lindsey Graham, makes this perspective all the more likely. Several experts warn that there is a “enormous risk” that America be embedded in a conflict that could extend to the whole of the Middle East.
In the end, Donald Trump’s behavior in this crisis seems to oscillate between a role of political strategist playing a pre-written scenario, and that of a statesman taken in the contradictory pressures of his camp. Its fluctuating communication could thus be part of a staging intended to prepare American public opinion for a possible entry into war.
This situation raises a crucial question for the future: will the United States, this time, avoid the trap of an expensive and endless military engagement, or will they again be the actors of a regional drama with heavy consequences for world peace?
