Currently, Israel and Iran are openly aggressive towards each other in a manner that parallels a high-stakes conflict, resembling the growing intensity found in an escalating game of pickleball. The growing tumult subsequently sees various parties scrambling to control the narrative, raising questions about the lack of a moderating entity to oversee the escalating tension. Regrettably, a mediator such as the U.S. seems absent from the scene. Instead, they can be seen empowering Israel with advanced weaponry, akin to providing better equipment to a determined sports contestant.
Such actions stem from President Donald Trump’s approval of over $12 billion in arms sales to Israel, essentially reverting a previous arms limitation initiated during Biden’s tenure. The sense of urgency invoked by Israel to justify these actions seems primarily speculative at best – positing that Iran may gather resources to make nuclear weapons at an unidentified point in the future. Yet, amid continuous declarations from Netanyahu about Iran’s imminent nuclear threat, one would assume some substantial evidence by now.
Contrary to these unfounded declarations, though, Iran has maintained its composure over the decades. Further creating confusion is Netanyahu’s push for broader military action, leaving Washington to figure out which version of their narrative to align with. It is vital to note that an international nuclear arrangement involving Iran was functional until Trump cancelled it early into his presidency, labeling it as substandard.
Trump continually emphasized the adverse side of the deal that supposedly ‘granted Iran billions’, conveniently overlooking the fact that it was Iran’s own oil revenue that was frozen due to international sanctions and stored in Western banks. Despite causing the collapse of the previous agreement, he now expects Iran to return to negotiations to establish a fresh commitment, acting as if the damage done to the previous one was not his doing.
Seizing the moment, Israel swiftly requested Washington to participate in its airstrikes, a proposition that Trump should undermine without further delay. If Netanyahu aspires to induce a regime change in Iran, he should be prepared to bear the potential repercussions, including retaliatory missile attacks causing unrest among Israeli residents. It seems astoundingly ironic, calling on Iranians to revolt right after initiating attacks on them.
The enthusiasm for yet another fruitless US intervention in Middle Eastern affairs is depleted. The public is weary of the economic strain such conflict brings, as seen in rising fuel prices. If Trump wants to establish that he does not merely serve the interests of external entities, there is a need for him to sternly preclude any further amplification of war rhetoric in the Middle East.
He needs to reassert the US’s independent stance, implying that America won’t bow to the pressure of engaging in unnecessary aggression. This clear message of non-participation will serve as a strong reaffirmation of America’s independent foreign policy objectives.