
While the US president has relied on the use of force as a negotiating tool for Iran's nuclear program, such a strategy proves to be very dangerous.
This is one of the main questions raised by the unprecedented escalation of violence following Israel's attack on Iran overnight from Thursday to Friday: why did Washington give the green light?
Quoted on Friday by the Wall Street Journal, US President Donald Trump stated that he was aware of the Jewish state's plans to launch attacks against Tehran.
Just a few days ago, however, he called on his Israeli ally not to strike the Islamic Republic as long as there was a chance of reaching an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.
Contrary to all expectations, the phone call held on Monday between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump even addressed coordination between the two countries before the attack, while the US president pretended to contain it, Israeli officials quoted by Axios media on Friday said.
"We had a clear green light from the United States," one of them said.
Forcing Iran to intervene
While the extent of his involvement in the operation remains unclear, some observers believe Washington played a major role.
“The United States most likely provided Israel with significant intelligence support while it was planning it,” suggests Nicholas Heras, director of strategy at the New Lines Institute.
How can we explain the Trump administration's stance?
While Israel's calculations are clear – to destroy Iran's nuclear program and bring the Iranian regime to its knees – the US president has relied on the use of force as a negotiating tool.
This strategy is clearly reflected in his statement published Friday on his Truth Social network. “Two months ago, I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to make a deal. They should have done it! Today is the 61st day. I told them what to do, and they didn’t. Now they can have a second chance!” he wrote.
“President Trump wants to use the Israeli attacks to pressure the Iranians in US-Iran negotiations,” Nicholas Heras points out. “Essentially, Israel is the ‘bad cop’ and the US is the ‘good cop.’”
Nuclear talks had reached a deadlock in recent days, despite Tehran's insistence that it would not give up its right to enrich uranium under any circumstances.
Shortly after Thursday evening's attack, Washington confirmed that the sixth round of talks between the two sides remained scheduled to take place in Oman on Sunday, although Iran announced on state television late Friday afternoon that it would not attend until further notice.
The American calculation is very risky: can Donald Trump ensure that he maintains control of events and manage to avoid dragging his country into a full-scale war?
As early as Wednesday, the Iranian Defense Minister threatened that "If a conflict is imposed on us, all American bases are within our reach and we will boldly target them."
“Iran has the ability to strike the US military in the Middle East and attack US targets around the world through a clandestine network of agents,” Nicholas Heras continues. “Both of these scenarios would likely lead to a major war between Washington and Tehran,” he continues.
Is de-escalation possible?
Given the scale of the potential risks, would the United States come to the aid of its Israeli ally in the event of a prolonged and intensified escalation?
"Israel has always been capable of starting this war. But it is equally clear that it cannot finish it alone," stressed Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran expert and lecturer at Lund University, on her X account.
Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump are scheduled to meet, according to an Israeli official quoted by CNN. "This requires active and substantial cooperation with the United States. The question is whether the Trump administration knows what it is getting into," the expert continues.
Is there still room for easing tensions?
"In such volatile situations, it is difficult to predict what will happen next, but Trump seems convinced that the Israeli operation can be contained and will not drag the United States into a regional war," suggests Seth Binder, Advocacy Director at the Center for Middle East Democracy.
"It is likely that Tehran will refrain from attacks (against US personnel in the region) that, at this stage, would damage its relations with the Arab world," qualifies researcher Ellie Geranmayeh for the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
Without a doubt, the actions of the American president remain to be closely monitored.