President Donald Trump and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu. Newsweek/AP.
President Donald Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to strike Iran's nuclear program and chose to attempt diplomacy instead. Newsweek. Israel was planning a joint raid on Iran to be launched as soon as this May. After months of internal debate, Trump decided that diplomacy was the better option, and has opened up talks with Iran. Without US support it is unlikely that Israel will be able to strike Iran as the attack would require US assets. Israel had wanted to set back Iran's nuclear programs. It is unclear if diplomacy will work or not, as there is a wide gulf between Iran and the United States, but talks have been described as positive. However, nuclear enrichment appears to be a sticking point.
The report originally came from the New York Times (archive).
My Comment:
The New York Times report is dramatically longer and more detailed than the one in Newsweek, but because it is usually paywalled I used Newsweek instead. If you want more details though, I provided an archive link to the article as well.
As for the story, it does show how Trump is a very different President than he is accused of. There were many during his original campaign that said that Trump was going to be a warmonger for reasons I never understood. Instead, Trump has always appeared to support diplomacy over war.
It also shows that certain critics are legitimately wrong about Trump. I'm not talking about the lefties that hate Trump no matter what, but the far right that have long accused Trump of being a slave to Israel. These folks call him "Zion Don" and today they have quite a bit of egg on their face. Indeed, Trump essentially vetoed Israel on these strikes.
It does sound like there was a pretty fierce debate about this in the Trump White House. JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, Susie Wiles were all on the oppose side while Mike Walz was more in favor of the strikes. It appears that the dove faction won over the hawk faction, and it helps that Trump himself is a lot more reluctant to launch strikes.
But even Watlz was pretty skeptical that Israel could actually accomplish their goals, even with US help, with the weapons they have. Getting rid of Israel's nuclear program would be a hard ask in the first place and there was real fear that any attack could lead to major reprisals across the Middle East. Though Iran is in a weakened state and they have lost a lot of their strongest allies, they are still a modern country with a powerful military and proxy groups across the Middle East.
Of course, diplomacy is going to be pretty difficult. Iran is unlikely to give up their nuclear weapons program. I think they feel they need the weapons because Israel has them, unofficially. If they were to stop developing these weapons they would still be at a major disadvantage in any serious war against Israel.
But I don't think it's a coincidence that this story came out right as negotiations are starting. Like the deployment of those B-2 Bombers to Diego Garcia, this is a message to Iran. The Trump administration is telling them in no uncertain terms that they could have faced a major conflict and this is probably their last, best, chance for peace.
Will Iran listen? If they are rational actors, then sure. Nobody wants a major war in the Middle East, outside of the most deranged warmongers. But the leadership of countries are often not rational actors. It's the only reason I can understand why Hamas is still fighting in Gaza and why Ukraine didn't stick with the cease fire proposal they were offered early in the war. Will Iran be smarter than that? Only time will tell...
No comments:
Post a Comment