COMMENT from I NJATI / Do you want to solve a problem? Don't look for the solution, but eliminate the problem!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Analysis: Is America preparing for war with Iran?

2025-06-18 12:49:07Pikëpamje SHKRUAR NGA JOHN T PSAROPOULOS
Is America preparing for war with Iran?

John T Psaropoulos - Al Jazeera

As the conflict between Iran and Israel escalates, the administration of United States President Donald Trump is giving ambiguous signals about its stance on a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program.

Publicly, she has supported a negotiated deal, and American and Iranian negotiators were scheduled to meet again this week. As late as Thursday, Trump insisted in a post on Truth Social: “We remain committed to a diplomatic solution.”

But 14 hours later, as Israel launched strikes on Iran, Trump tweeted that he had given Iran a 60-day deadline to make a deal — and that deadline had expired. On Sunday, Trump declared that “Israel and Iran must make a deal” and that it would happen with his help.

On Monday, as Trump prepared to leave the G7 summit in Canada early, his warnings became more ominous: He tweeted that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon” and added: “Everyone must evacuate Tehran immediately!” The US president later denied speculation that he had returned to Washington to negotiate a ceasefire, stressing that it was for “something much bigger than that.”

Trump's vague statements have sparked debate among analysts over the true extent of US involvement and intentions in the Israel-Iran conflict.

"Winking" or involvement?

Trump has denied any US involvement in the attacks. “The US had nothing to do with the attack on Iran tonight,” he wrote on Sunday.

Kelsey Davenport, director of nonproliferation policy at the American Arms Control Association, said Trump's messages had been clear. "I think President Trump has been very clear in his opposition to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was underway. And the reports suggest that he has opposed [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu," she said.

According to Davenport, it is more likely that “Israel was concerned that diplomacy would succeed, and that it would bring about an agreement” that “was not consistent with its interests and objectives toward Iran.”

Richard Nephew, a professor at Columbia University and former director for Iran affairs on the National Security Council under President Obama, agrees. He points out that it was precisely Trump's insistence on a deal that worried Israel.

“I think what's problematic is precisely this persistence,” Nephew said.

But Ali Ansari, professor of Iranian history at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, has a different opinion.

"The US was aware... Even if the exact timing of the attack surprised them, they should have been aware, so a 'blink of an eye' is an apt description," he told Al Jazeera.

“At the same time, the US thinks Israel should take the lead and do this itself,” he added.

Could the US be involved in the conflict?

Israel is believed to have destroyed the above-ground part of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The facility enriches uranium to 60% — well above the 3.67% needed for power, but below the 90% required for an atomic bomb. The loss of power at Natanz as a result of the Israeli attack may have also damaged the underground part of the facility, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

But according to the IAEA's assessment, Israel has not damaged the other uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, which is located inside a mountain and also enriches uranium to 60%.

“It is possible that Israel would need US support if it wanted to penetrate some of these underground facilities,” Davenport said, citing the US’s largest conventional bomb, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, weighing 13,600 kg.

“[With] repeated strikes with this munition, some of these facilities could be damaged or destroyed,” she said, emphasizing that “Washington has not transferred this bomb to Israel.”

Barbara Slavin, a distinguished scholar at the Stimson Center, an American think tank, also told Al Jazeera that Israel would need American weapons to fulfill its objective of destroying the Iranian nuclear program.

Nephew does not rule out the possibility of this happening.

“We know that [Trump] likes to be on the side of the winners. If he perceives Israel as the winner right now, that's why he's taking this stance and why I think we're dealing with a 'wink' towards Israel,” he said.

On Friday, the US flew a large number of aerial refueling planes to the Middle East and ordered the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz to move to the area. On Tuesday, it announced it would also send additional fighter jets to the region.

Ansari agrees that the initial success of the Israeli strikes may tempt Trump to get involved, just to take some of the glory, but thinks it could force Iran to back down.

“There is a good chance that the US will join in an attack on Fordow, but I think only the serious threat of a US attack will force the Iranians to sit down at the negotiating table,” Ansari said. “They can back down – honorably – in the face of the United States; they cannot do so in the face of Israel, although they may not have a choice.”

Concerned about possible American involvement, US Senator Tim Kaine introduced a war powers resolution on Monday that would require Congressional authorization for any military action against Iran.

"It is not in our national security interest to go to war with Iran unless absolutely necessary to defend the United States," Kaine said.

Diplomacy or force?

Former President Obama did not consider a military solution to Iran's nuclear program attractive or feasible, and therefore opted for a diplomatic process that culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. This agreement provided for full monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities by the IAEA, to ensure that uranium enrichment would remain at levels necessary for energy.

According to Nephew and Davenport, Trump contributed to indirectly promoting the military option when he withdrew the US from the JCPOA in 2018, due to Israel's demand.

Two years later, Iran announced that it would enrich uranium to 4.5%, and in 2021, it reached the 20% level. In 2023, the IAEA announced that it had found uranium particles at Fordow enriched to 83.7%.

Trump offered no alternative to the JCPOA during his first presidential term, and neither did President Joe Biden thereafter.

“The push to burn the JCPOA was a direct contribution to getting the situation to where it is today,” Nephew said. Choosing a military path instead of a diplomatic one to stop a nuclear program “encourages proliferation,” he said, “because countries think, ‘The only way to protect themselves is to follow this path.’”

Davenport, an expert on Iran's and North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, said that even a regime change in Tehran - as Netanyahu has called for - would not solve the problem.

“Regime change is not a guaranteed nonproliferation strategy,” she said. “We don’t know what would happen next in Iran if this regime were to fall. If the military were to take control, nuclear weapons could become more likely. But even if it were a more open and democratic government, even democracies could choose to build nuclear weapons.”

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×