CNN
–
It’s easy to flash Donald Trump with a laugh. Also.
Ultimately, the president decided not to decide whether to attack Israel’s attack on Iran for up to two weeks.
But when the Chief Commander decides to spend time on the issues of life and death, it is not necessarily a sign of weakness.
“We all want a diplomatic resolution here, and diplomacy with a solid deadline is very effective,” former White House and State Department official Brett McGurk told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “This is a solid deadline and if a diplomatic resolution is needed by the end of two weeks, or the president could be a very effective combination.”
But Trump’s record of unpredictability raises doubts whether he will use the cockpit he has created.
In both chairs, Trump often placed himself a two-week action deadline on troublesome issues such as infrastructure, trade transactions and Russian sanctions, and then did nothing. This is in line with his trademark life strategy to constantly delay calculations beyond personal financial crisis, legal threats, or impossible decisions to land on an oval office desk.
Until Thursday, all the indications coming out of the White House were that Trump was approaching ordering a US bombing attack on a nuclear power plant underground in Fordaw in Iran.
However, after reviewing the strike option, he is now being pulled back.
It didn’t take long for Trump critics to fill social media with new sightings of tacos (“Trump Always Kill Chickens”) syndrome. But Trump is operating in the real world at once, not in the online world. No one knows what will happen if the US bombs Iran. The lives of service personnel in the US are on the line. A geopolitical shockwave can cause a wave of regional wars, Iranian civil war, or retaliation from Tehran.
With the dark shadows of the Iraq war still plagued by US politics, Trump is not the only president to blurt out new military action in the Middle East.
In 2013, a comparison is made with President Barack Obama’s decision to pass the bombing of Syria to enforce the “red line” on the use of chemical weapons, which many analysts now consider to be a mistake. Obama interrupted him as he was unsure of what would happen the day after the US relied on military power.
Sometimes, the president’s decision not to go to war may be as brave as ordering a strike when multiple stakeholders are seeking action.
Trump is struggling with either of his president’s national security dilemmas. He threatened Iran to wipe Israel off the map, promising that he viewed the United States as the great Satan, and that he would never be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. So, whether he’s a two-week pause or not, he has no choice but to use military force.
This is like the other decision Trump faced as president.
It’s one thing to spark a trade war on Tuesday and to alleviate it on Wednesday. But if Trump sends us a B-2 bomber with a bomb that destroys the bunker on his mission to destroy Fordow, he will not return.
His delay gives him time. The question is whether he will use it.
To begin with, the President has restored his own ability to control the timeline for our actions. This week it often appeared to be pushed into participating in the conflict by the pace of Israel’s attacks on Iran.
The strategic reality here is that Israel began a conflict after an assessment of its own important interests, which could not be completely over. Only the US has the ability to send bombs deep into the mountains and protect the Fordow enrichment plant.
The president justified the suspension by the need to diplomatic one last attempt.
“Based on the fact that there is a considerable potential for negotiation that may or may not be held with Iran in the near future, I will decide whether to go within the next two weeks,” he said in a statement read to reporters by White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt.
Trump’s political profession regarding the failed Iranian nuclear talks was unskilled, so there seems to be an unlikely breakthrough.
However, the possibility of new talks between his envoy, Steve Witkov, and Iranian officials, allowed us to test whether the six-day relentless Israeli bombing shifted calculations among Iranian leaders. For example, would leadership consider a previously unknown decision to examine the nuclear program and strengthen its right to enrich uranium in exchange for opportunities?
Trump probably needs to change his uncompromising approach to consultation. He may follow the example of his glorious predecessor.
In a speech at the American University just five months before the assassination, President John F. Kennedy reflected the lessons drawn from the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
Trump’s situation with Iran is not entirely similar, as Tehran is not considered to own nuclear weapons yet. However, the principles are the same. For diplomacy, Trump needs to provide a way to tremble faces from conflict that can maintain a sense of nominal honor. So far, he has called for “unconditional surrender” on social media and did the opposite. This is an impossible condition for a regime based on decades of US imperialism and opposition to what is considered domination.
Karim Sadjadpur, a senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argued that conditions that have historically led to Iran’s concessions may be lurking. He identified three such factors: Iran recognizes it faces existential economic pressure. A reliable military threat. Diplomatic isolation. However, Sadjadpour said there is a need for a fourth trigger for progress. It’s a “face-saving diplomatic outlet.”
“The offer given to them was “unconditional surrender.” That’s what President Trump asked them to do. And most dictators are not ready to receive an offer of unconditional surrender,” he added, “We have to seriously consider this a little different packaging, so I think there’s a ladder for them to descend.”
Iran’s next move could be influenced by a perception of Trump’s true intentions. The president’s frequent and multiple mountain climbs — for example, about his trade war and his resistance to impose pressure on Russia against Ukraine — raises doubts about his credibility.
Trump’s adaptability could have been one factor, even if the Israeli Prime Minister knew that what he believed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a strategic window into which Israel could take on Iran, could drag the United States into a new war.
If an Iranian leader concludes that Trump is a paper tiger, they may be seduced to call him bluff. They may make dangerous mistakes. But American history is littered with disastrous examples of presidents who were forced to use military force to protect individual credibility.
Trump’s pause left Israel with its own questions. There is little doubt that the Netanyahu government hopes the US will take part in the battle with the help of former Israeli officials who appeared on US television networks.
One possible scenario would be for Netanyahu to use the next two weeks to look into options that Israel may have to disable Fordow and other facilities on its own. One of the few possibilities is the bold commando attack. This will be a major risk that is uncertain about the likelihood of success. And it is unclear whether Israel itself has a lift and a search and rescue function that may allow it to carry such operations.
“The challenge for Israelis is that if the US gives negotiations a chance, then Israelis will wait?” Seth Jones, a former adviser to the commander of the US Special Forces in Afghanistan, told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Thursday. “That’s not out of the question… They decide that they have to do that operation on the Fordow and don’t wait.”
This may suggest another reason for Trump’s suspension. Perhaps he hopes the event will spare him the need to make a fateful decision over the next two weeks.
A two-week suspension could also give the president time for two other priorities – selling what is an unpopular choice to launch military action at home, and even deploying US troops fully for attacks and Iranian retaliation.
The possibility of a US strike unfolding within the president’s political foundation is that his promise to avoid any further Middle Eastern war has always been at the heart of his appeal. One of the most vocal enemies of our new, expanded engagement is former Trump political guru Steve Bannon, who is holding the popular YouTube show. Bannon had lunch with the president at the White House on Thursday. Another pro-Trump conservative, Tucker Carlson, attacked a right-wing media figure instigating war in Iran.
However, the prospects for the Maga rebellion may be exaggerated. Bannon shows that when it finally comes, he will line up behind Trump. Trump also has a deep bond with his voters. He created his alliance. It didn’t make him, and he might have a fair amount of room to guide his followers in new directions.
“Trust in President Trump. President Trump has an incredible instinct, and President Trump kept America and the world safe in his first term,” Lewitt told his supporters directly on Thursday.
But this won’t move millions of Americans who oppose Trump. Five months after torn apart the deep national division, he appears to be turning his eyes, but he will have a much more difficult task to win support for the whole country.