The recent acknowledgment by former President Donald Trump concerning Iran’s unwavering uranium enrichment activities, despite the collaborative strikes from the U.S. and Israel in June, confronts the unsparing realpolitik of the Middle East. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, made a trip to Washington at the beginning of the week, with an ostensible goal of discussing the Gaza situation. However, an informed Israeli source hints that the main issue on the agenda was quite likely the next stage of action against Iran.
The continuity of Iran’s uranium enrichment poses a significant decision for Trump: whether he will prioritize the strategic concerns of the U.S., or yield to the requests of Israel’s staunch government. The strikes launched recently aimed to deter Iran’s long-term nuclear plans. However, they also revealed the boundaries of how much can be achieved by sheer force, raising questions about next steps.
Observations from satellite imagery clearly depict Iran reestablishing its Fordow site that had been besieged. Meanwhile, Iran has halted its communication with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Far from expressing submission, Iran has instead displayed an attitude of open defiance. Part and parcel of this has been a rallying of Iranian civilians behind their government, with the public sentiment now largely favoring the creation of weapons as a last line of defense against future attacks, a position that was previously only held by a small minority.
As a result, the strikes did not deliver the hoped-for outcomes. Instead, they led to consequences that were largely foreseeable: turmoil across the Middle East and a preoccupied America that is torn between prioritizing military aid to either Israel or Ukraine amid ongoing congressional budget disputes.
Nonetheless, potential paths to peaceful resolution with Iran and overall stability in the Middle East have not been completely forfeit. Reigniting the nuclear agreement or even agreeing on tentative terms could resume inspections, limit uranium enrichment activities, and foster inventive solutions for tracking the alleged 60 percent enriched uranium that has reportedly gone missing from Fordow, potentially by transporting it to Russia.
Indeed, Trump has on several occasions considered Moscow as a potential ally in managing the Iranian impasse. The subject is known to be a recurring theme in his discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, conversations taking place behind the scenes through Oman indicate that renewed diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran could be plausible.
In these discreet negotiations, a meeting reportedly occurred between a U.S. envoy and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oslo. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian also made statements reasserting Iran’s willingness to reopen discussions with Washington.
Diplomatic efforts have encountered hurdles mainly due to the extreme demands set by the Israeli leader. Netanyahu’s insistence on not just ending Iran’s civilian nuclear program, but also complete disarmament of its missile reserves, and ultimately all conventional defenses. This would enable Israel’s dominance in both political and military spheres, allowing it to take aggressive action against Iran without fear of retaliation, a pretext for an assertive regional strategy similar to its dealings with Lebanon and Syria.
Despite potentially appearing outlandish for a nation dependent on outside assistance like Israel, these ambitions have yielded political benefits for Netanyahu and his coalition. Civilian casualties caused by Iran’s counterstrikes—resulting in 29 deaths and thousands injured—have only stoked fear and entrenched the defensive attitude among Netanyahu’s allies.
Netanyahu’s primary pathway to fortify Israel’s regional supremacy and solidify his political victories is reigniting hostilities with Iran. However, Israel—a nation of 9.8 million people densely packed into limited land with no strategic edge—simply cannot manage the long-term repercussions of conflict with Iran, a nation with a population that outnumbers Israel’s tenfold.
Overlooking Iran’s geographical vastness, Israel’s accumulated population and key infrastructure—including its nuclear facility in Dimona—are in a precarious situation, extremely susceptible to escalation. It is precisely for this reason that Netanyahu has sought to embroil Trump in his war efforts: Israel is not equipped to challenge Iran without the backing of its superpower ally, the U.S.
Trump, on the other hand, must steer clear from this strategically fraught path. Significantly, he has demonstrated some reserve when it comes to complying wholly with Netanyahu’s escalating plans. During the intense 12-day showdown with Iran, the Trump administration only authorized limited strikes on Fordow, reportedly after notifying Tehran. This cautious move, though demonstrating the U.S.’s resolve, intentionally refrained from igniting a full-scale U.S. war, which Netanyahu had sought.
Trump has solid political reasons to continue in this direction of careful pragmatism. Poll data indicates that 60 percent of Americans feel that U.S. military personnel should remain uninvolved in any conflict between Israel and Iran, with a mere 16 percent backing militaristic action.
Another critical factor favoring deescalation is America’s budding relationships with nations like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. These alliances, which were catalyzed during Trump’s noteworthy trip to the region in May, necessitate the avoidance of sweeping conflicts that could disrupt regional stability. Trump faces a pressing decision: to go along with the encroaching war sentiment from Israel or take active steps towards having ‘America First’ realized finally by choosing peace. It is a defining moment for the ex-president’s promise to curtail ‘stupid wars’.