Trump’s Commitment to Avoiding Forever Wars
President Donald Trump’s foreign policy has consistently emphasized a clear mandate: he refuses to involve the United States in another “forever war.” This stance is now being put to the test as Israel intensifies its military operations against Iran, prompting questions about how much backing the U.S. will offer in this precarious situation.
Despite his calls for restraint, urging Israel to seek diplomatic solutions, Trump has had to navigate a complicated landscape. His administration’s approach involved ongoing dialogue, evidenced by his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, scheduled to meet with Iranian officials for the sixth time. Just hours after cautioning that military action could spiral into a major conflict, Trump lauded Israel’s airstrikes as “excellent,” suggesting that he may endorse further military action if Iran does not concede.
U.S. Support and Israeli Strikes
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reiterated that the United States remains uninvolved in Israel’s strikes but warned Iran against retaliating against U.S. troops stationed in neighboring Arab states. However, a U.S. official acknowledged involvement in assisting Israel with intercepting Iranian missiles fired in retaliation.
Alex Vatanka, from the Middle East Institute, articulated the administration’s hope that Iran would weigh the risks and benefits carefully and decide against escalating the conflict further. He pointed out that while Iranian leaders are preoccupied with survival, they might find themselves at a crossroads: either accepting unfavorable terms or escalating chaos within the vital Gulf region, which could destabilize global oil markets.
The Republican Party’s Response
In response to the escalating situation, influential lawmakers within Trump’s Republican Party have quickly extended their support to Israel, viewing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a key ally against Iran. Historically, Netanyahu has painted Iran as a significant threat, resonating with the party’s base.
However, within Trump’s own populist faction, skepticism remains. Media commentator Tucker Carlson has voiced skepticism regarding claims that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, arguing that neither Iran nor Ukraine warrants American military involvement. Following the Israeli strike, Carlson noted a division within Trump’s advisors, highlighting a struggle between those who advocate for conflict and those seeking peace.
Internal Divisions in the Trump Administration
Trump’s administration has incorporated several vocal non-interventionists, most notably Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Recently, she cautioned against the dangers posed by “warmongers” at a peace event in Hiroshima. In Saudi Arabia, Trump reiterated his commitment to peace, stating that his aim is to unify rather than engage in warfare.
As tensions rise, the question remains about how far Trump will go in supporting Israel. Daniel Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, emphasized that while support against Iranian retaliation is assured, Trump faces critical decisions regarding the use of American capabilities to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Balancing Support and Public Sentiment
Shapiro warned that Trump may confront divisions among his advisors and political base, especially amidst allegations that Netanyahu seeks to entangle the U.S. in a broader war. Criticism from the opposing Democratic Party has been sharp, with figures like Representative Joaquin Castro condemning Netanyahu’s actions and questioning the true meaning of Trump’s “America First” policy if it leads to war.
Progressive analyst Sina Toossi also noted that China, perceived by Trump as the primary global threat, may exploit the distraction of U.S. engagements in the Middle East. This complex web of international relations raises concerns about the potential for conflict to spiral out of control, with the risk of broader military engagements becoming a reality.
