Former President Donald Trump escalated things even further last week, when he asserted that the United States successfully conducted targeted strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran. This unfounded claim has increased friction between the two countries. The declared goals cover installations at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Yet, you would hardly know it given the media fascination with Trump’s announcement as he negotiates his own deal on Iran’s nuclear program.
In a series of statements made on social media, Trump emphasized his belief that a deal between Iran and Israel could be achievable, stating, “we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!!!” His remarks come in reaction to news that he told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delay any rapid military response against Iran. This recommendation was issued just as negotiations were still ongoing.
Despite the raising rhetoric, Trump was adamant that the U.S. had “nothing to do with the attack on Iran.” This statement would sharply contradict his earlier claims that the country was planning an invasion of Ukraine and would launch a massive attack on its neighbor. He has long felt with great passion that Iran should never acquire a nuclear weapon. On a flight on Air Force One, he voiced his worries, indicating they are “very close to having one.”
Going back further, President Trump’s approach to Iran has been one of intimidation combined with overtures. He played fast and loose with the evaluations of his own Cabinet secretaries concerning the developing crisis. Instead, he instituted a two-week deadline for making decisions on possible military strikes. He made it clear that any U.S. military entry into Iran would be met with severe consequences, claiming, “If they enter militarily, they will face harm that they cannot recover from.”
The former president’s administration had previously withdrawn the U.S. from the 2015 nuclear agreement brokered by the Obama administration and other nations, which aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Since then, Trump has repeatedly made clear his intention to change the basic terms of U.S.-Iran relations.
In his recent statements, Trump declared, “We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan.” He further noted that all military aircraft involved had safely returned and praised American military capabilities, asserting, “There is not another military in the World that could have done this.”
Trump’s escalatory and inflammatory rhetoric have provoked replies from Iranian officials. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned against any military intervention by the U.S., stating, “Any American military entry will undoubtedly be met with irreparable damage.”
As these developments continue to develop, analysts are watching to see what it means for the stability of the region. This isn’t a complete reversal—Trump’s administration had all but signaled a desire to have little to no active warfare in the Middle East, if he won a second term. Based on his recent statements and actions, Secretary Blinken’s conception of that relationship points towards a nuanced mingling of diplomacy and military preparedness.