Israel vs Iran: Why it's a war Trump threatens to join but doesn't want to

United States President Donald Trump has found himself at the centre of an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran — one he publicly wants to avoid, but may be forced to enter.

Despite threats of overwhelming force against Iran, Trump is visibly reluctant to commit American troops to a direct confrontation — a decision complicated by the domestic political realities of his second term and the divided views within his own support base.

While the US continues to shield Israel against Tehran’s missile and drone barrage, Trump is attempting to maintain a delicate balance between deterrence and restraint.

Yet, events may soon push him toward the very kind of war he pledged to avoid.

Trump’s red lines: “If we are attacked…”

Trump has issued clear threats against Tehran but continues to state that America is not responsible for the most recent attacks against Iran. In a Truth Social post, he stated: “If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the US Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.”

At the same time, he has maintained that the US “had nothing to do with the attack on Iran tonight,” referring to Israel’s latest operation.

While American forces have so far stayed out of offensive military operations, the possibility of direct conflict looms large. Trump also recently rejected an Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Still, the White House is aware that circumstances may soon remove that option. Should Iran retaliate against US military bases or personnel in the region or target Americans globally, Washington would be compelled to respond militarily to preserve deterrence and credibility.

Tehran also has the option of pressuring the US indirectly — for example, by attacking shipping routes in the Gulf or Red Sea.

This would not only heighten the regional conflict but could also trigger a global economic crisis due to disrupted oil flows.

A divided Trump base back home

Trump’s challenge is not limited to foreign adversaries. Prominent figures within his own movement are increasingly vocal in their opposition to American military engagement.

Former Trump aide Steve Bannon, Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene have all publicly spoken out against US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, warning it violates Trump’s long-standing promise to keep America out of overseas wars.

Their message resonates with a core segment of the Maga base, which has grown increasingly isolationist. Many within this group view foreign wars as fiscally irresponsible, citing the $36 trillion national debt and the costs of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

While some far-right elements within the movement have expressed anti-Semitic views — exemplified by chants like “Jews will not replace us” at previous rallies — the broader coalition is focused on avoiding foreign entanglements, regardless of the parties involved.

This internal division leaves Trump navigating a tightrope. Though the pro-Israel lobby continues to exert influence in Washington, and some critics accuse Trump of yielding to its pressure, he is deeply conscious of the political costs of alienating his base.

As he told The Atlantic, “Considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America first,’ and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along, I think I’m the one that decides that.”

Still, he added: “You can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon.” That line suggests Trump may be preparing the rhetorical ground in case he decides that limited military action is unavoidable.

Iran’s nuclear “threat”

Trump had hoped to resolve the Iran issue through diplomacy — and he came close, according to his own account. In an interview with Reuters, he stated that he had given Iran a 60-day window to reach a deal.

“We knew everything, and I tried to save Iran humiliation and death. I tried to save them very hard because I would have loved to have seen a deal worked out,” Trump said.

“They can still work out a deal, however – it’s not too late.” But he admitted, “I couldn’t get them to an agreement in 60 days. They were close; they should have done it. Maybe now it will happen.”

From his perspective, the responsibility now lies with Tehran. But for Israel, time may already be up. The ongoing military campaign — dubbed Operation Rising Lion — has included targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and top military officials.

Still, questions remain as to whether Israel alone possesses the capability to neutralise Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, particularly fortified underground sites like Fordow.

This has led to growing calls within the United States for direct action. Some hawks argue that the present moment — with Iran’s leadership on the back foot — may be the best opportunity for a decisive US strike to cripple its nuclear programme, reported CNN.

Former US Vice President Mike Pence, speaking on C_NN’s State of the Union_, suggested that if Iran does not yield, the US must be prepared to step in militarily.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials maintain that their military operations are self-directed.

“The war was planned by Blue and White, we don’t need the US for the goals we defined. We know how to handle all matters,” National Security Council Chief Tzachi Hanegbi said, as reported by Israeli broadcaster KAN.

‘America First’ vs Reality

Trump’s reluctance to enter a new war is rooted not only in political instinct but in the broader framework of his foreign policy. His second term began with a renewed call for peace and prosperity in West Asia.

In a keynote speech in Saudi Arabia in May, Trump declared: “The so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”

He envisioned a new era where “the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together — not bombing each other out of existence.”

A direct American war against Iran would be incompatible with that vision — but so, perhaps, is the current geopolitical reality.

How Trump’s ‘deal-making’ doctrine is failing

Within months of returning to office, Trump’s grand strategy appears to be unravelling.

He has been repeatedly defied by global leaders. According to CNN, Vladimir Putin has dismissed his efforts to broker an end to the Ukraine war. Xi Jinping has twice outmanoeuvred Trump on trade.

And now, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has launched a war against Iran despite American warnings — a conflict that could draw Washington into the very quagmire it has sought to avoid for decades.

Trump’s second term has not delivered the breakthroughs he promised. His initial attempts to de-escalate the conflict in Gaza have failed.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians remain displaced and under siege, as Israel’s military campaign continues in response to the October 2023 Hamas attacks.

At home, Trump has made controversial decisions, including deploying federal troops in California amid anti-ICE protests and threatening to use the military more broadly across the country.

These moves have alienated large segments of the American public and eroded his ability to build bipartisan support for foreign interventions.

So far, the promised benefits of Trump’s aggressive economic and diplomatic strategies — including new trade deals and peace agreements — have not materialised.

Instead, he faces the grim prospect of overseeing a third major war in West Asia on top of ongoing crises in Ukraine and Gaza.

Also Watch:

With inputs from agencies