1. Cede to Netanyahu and Escalate
When Israel’s missiles struck tehran,Trump threatened Iranian leaders with “even more brutal” attacks,carried out by his Israeli ally with American bombs. Trump’s long-term objective is known: like Netanyahu, he does not want Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. He has said an agreement between the U.S.and Iran is his preferred route, which reflects his self-image as a world-class negotiator.
However, he has been ambiguous on how to achieve it, occasionally resorting to threats and sometiems diplomacy. Last week, he even suggested that an Israeli attack against Iran could either facilitate or ruin an agreement.
His unpredictability is sometimes described by his supporters as strategic, known as the “mad theory” in foreign relations, which suggests that deliberate uncertainty can coerce adversaries. This practise is attributed to President Richard Nixon, who allegedly used it during the Cold War.
Some of Trump’s advisors and supporters favor “maximum pressure” in dealing with Iran. They believe that threats will be prosperous as, in their view, Iran doesn’t take negotiations seriously. Netanyahu has persistently pressured Trump to adopt a military approach rather then a diplomatic one, and the U.S. president, despite his aspirations for a Nobel Peace Prize, might feel compelled to follow through on his most aggressive threats against Tehran.
Argument: Some advisors believe “maximum pressure” and threats are the only way to deal with Iran, as they don’t take negotiations seriously.
Israel could also push for more U.S. intervention. The U.S. possesses “anti-bunker” bombs which, according to Israel, can destroy the underground enrichment plant that Iran has in Fordow. As the fighting intensifies,Trump faces increased pressure from the more aggressive Republicans in Congress who have long sought regime change in Iran.
Trump may also believe that this could force the Iranians to negotiate from a weaker position. The truth is that a sixth round of conversations was planned with Trump’s envoy in Oman, on Sunday, but now those talks have been abandoned.
2.The Midpoint: Maintaining Course
Escalation carries significant risks for Trump’s legacy. U.S. naval destroyers and land-based missile batteries are already assisting Israel in defending against Iranian retaliation. Some of trump’s advisors on the National Security council are likely cautioning against actions that could intensify Israel’s attacks, especially considering some Iranian missiles are bypassing Israeli and American defenses with lethal results.
risk: Escalation poses significant risks to Trump’s legacy, with some advisors cautioning against intensifying attacks due to Iranian missiles bypassing defenses.
Netanyahu now argues that attacking Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Jamenei, would end the conflict without escalating it. Though, Trump has made it clear that, for now, he opposes such a measure.
3. Retrenchment
A key political factor influencing Trump’s decisions is his domestic support. Most Republicans in Congress firmly support israel, including the continued supply of U.S. weapons. Many have openly backed attacks against Iran.
However, key voices within Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement now reject this conventional support for Israel. Several have recently questioned why the U.S. should risk being drawn into a Middle East war, given Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.
Pro-Trump journalist Tucker Carlson wrote a strong criticism on Friday, arguing that the U.S. should not get involved and should “abandon Israel.” Carlson suggested that Netanyahu and his “avid war government” are acting in a way that would drag U.S. soldiers to fight in their name.
“Participating would be equivalent to showing the middle finger to the millions of voters who cast their vote with the hope of choosing a government that finally prioritized USA,” Carlson wrote.
MAGA Division: Key figures in the MAGA movement, like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, are questioning U.S. involvement and support for Israel.
Similarly, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Trump loyalist, posted on X: “Anyone who is cheering for the US to be fully involved in the war between Israel and Iran is not a MAGA supporter.”
This represents a considerable vulnerability for Trump. It increases the pressure on him to distance the U.S. from the israeli offensive, and there are indications, at least publicly, that he has responded.
The debate in the MAGA movement coincided with Trump’s social media post in which he mentioned Russian President Vladimir Putin joining to ask for the end of the war. On Sunday, he stated that Iran and israel should reach an agreement, adding: “The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran.”
Iran has already threatened to attack U.S. bases in the region if Washington supports Israel’s defence. The risk of American casualties would likely amplify the isolationist argument of MAGA, which in turn could push Trump to retreat and urge Netanyahu to end the offensive more swiftly.
4. The Humanitarian Factor
Amidst the escalating tensions, humanitarian concerns also come into play. According to the CDC, civilian populations are frequently enough disproportionately affected during armed conflicts. The destruction of infrastructure, including water and sanitation systems, can lead to outbreaks of infectious diseases. Moreover, displacement and limited access to healthcare facilities exacerbate health risks. The CDC highlights the importance of providing medical supplies, ensuring safe drinking water, and establishing vaccination programs to mitigate public health crises during war.
additionally, the CDC emphasizes the psychological toll of conflict. Exposure to violence, loss of loved ones, and the constant threat of attack can lead to increased rates of PTSD and other mental health disorders.Providing mental health services and psychosocial support is crucial for addressing the emotional needs of those affected by war, according to the CDC.
Humanitarian impact: conflict escalations can have serious impacts on humanitarian factors such as civilian populations.
The CDC also stresses that these factors can pose importent ramifications for the global health landscape.
5. economic Implications
Beyond the immediate geopolitical and humanitarian consequences, economic ramifications also warrant attention. The CDC’s data reveals that conflicts often disrupt trade routes, leading to supply chain disruptions, and impacting both regional and global economies. This can result in price increases for essential goods, making it more difficult for people to access food, medicine, and other necessities.
Also, the CDC notes that wars also divert resources away from vital public health programs. Funding that could be used for disease prevention and treatment may be redirected to support military operations, which in turn can worsen health outcomes and undermine overall public health security.
Economic Impact: Economic consequences like trade route disruption and the diversion of public health funding can occur.
Additionally, the CDC stresses the importance of monitoring and responding to these economic impacts. International cooperation is crucial for providing financial aid, stabilizing markets, and ensuring access to resources for populations affected by conflict.
Table of Contents
