Trump draws ever closer to strikes on Iran

The Israel-Iran war is the most acute foreign-policy dilemma so far of Donald Trump’s turbulent second term. Should America join Israel’s attacks on the Islamic Republic? The stakes are sky-high, the consequences of military action totally unpredictable, and the president’s political movement split. Yet in a big shift the president is now signalling he may help Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. On June 17th he warned “our patience is wearing thin” and demanded “unconditional surrender”. He then gathered in the Situation Room with his national-security advisers. A military build-up is under way. Insiders say that within the coming hours America will be positioned to attack Iran. The aircraft-carrier USS Nimitz is steaming to the Gulf with a battle group, doubling the number of carriers in the region. A “major flow” of US Air Force aerial tankers is now flying to the Middle East according to plane-tracking websites.

Mr Trump is drawn to success and Israel has momentum: the IAEA, a nuclear watchdog, has just confirmed damage to underground enrichment halls at Natanz, a nuclear site. The rate of Iranian strikes on Israel is falling. “Trump is seriously thinking about intervention. It looks like Israel is winning. Trump likes to be on the winning team,” says Dana Stroul of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The economic risks, probably an important concern for Mr Trump, have been contained so far. Two sea tankers have collided in the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian boats are active in those waters, and Qatar has urged vessels carrying gas to avoid dwelling in the strait. Despite these disruptions the oil price remains below $80 a barrel and the price of petrol at the pump in America is still about $3 per gallon.

The administration’s sceptics have been quietened. Neo-isolationists, such as the vice-president, J.D. Vance, see the Middle East as a quagmire. “Prioritisers”, such as Elbridge Colby, the under-secretary of defence policy, want to focus on China (Mr Colby has resisted the redeployment of forces to the Middle East). But for now their voices are either subdued or vaguely supportive. On June 17th Mr Vance remarked, “People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.”

Mr Trump’s emerging position on Iran is in many ways familiar: he is simultaneously unleashing huge threats and demanding huge concessions. One obvious threat is to deploy America’s bunker-busting bomb, the 30,000lb “massive ordnance penetrator” (or GBU-57), carried on a B-2 bomber (pictured), to destroy Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow, which is buried underground and beyond the capacity of Israel’s air force. The concession he is now demanding of Iran is, in effect, the elimination of the entire uranium-enrichment programme on Iranian soil and, perhaps, caps on its missiles and support for militias. Mr Trump says he wants “an end, a real end, not a ceasefire, a real end” and a “complete give-up” by Iran. He has so far de-emphasised regime change, saying it is not his intention to kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, “at least not for now”.

The danger for Mr Trump is his coercive diplomacy, which has had few successes elsewhere, is particularly ill suited to a dynamic conventional war between entrenched enemies. According to Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, “our job is to be strong…in pursuit of a peace deal”. The trouble is Iran’s leaders have never accepted demands for “zero enrichment”, ie, giving up the ability to concentrate fissile material for nuclear reactors and atomic bombs. In order to be induced to abandon their nuclear programme they would have to believe American and Israeli promises never to attack the regime again, which is by any standard a stretch. According to Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, a think-tank, the regime perceives the danger from capitulation to America to be more threatening than Israeli bombs.

There are some scenarios that would be a win for the president. His threats could, against the odds, induce a sudden concession from the Iranians. A concentrated use of force by America on Fordow could decisively push back Iran’s nuclear programme without escalating the war. It is not impossible there could be a peaceful transfer of power inside Iran. But many scenarios are troubling. Iran could be left with the regime intact and more intent than ever on clandestinely pursuing a bomb. It could retaliate against American forces in the region, stirring terrorism and closing the Strait of Hormuz. A regional war or collapse of the regime would create chaos that spills over borders. Much of the MAGA movement is up in arms, with supporters fearing another “forever war”. Tucker Carlson, a media figure on the right, has said the president’s political coalition “feels like it’s being blown up” over the Middle East mayhem. For Mr Trump there are no easy decisions on Iran. ■