Israel News, Thursday, 12.06.2025
Are the words and actions of the past 24 hours a precursor to military escalation, or is it a last-ditch leverage ploy from a president who has long viewed himself as the world’s most skilled negotiator?  Ben Samuels  |
| WASHINGTON – The past 48 hours of saber-rattling between the U.S., Iran and Israel have justifiably created the appearance that unprecedented military escalation may be coming sooner rather than later. In the past 24 hours alone, the U.S. has pulled personnel from its embassy in Iraq while permitting nonessential personnel to leave postings in Bahrain – home to a significant U.S. naval base – and Kuwait. This action was soon accompanied by strategic American leaks indicating they are prepared for an Israeli strike on Iranian targets, as well as increasingly pessimistic assessments emanating from U.S. President Donald Trump and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on the state of negotiations. “They are being moved out. It could be a dangerous place, we’ll see what happens,” Trump said outside the Kennedy Center, strongly alluding to the potential domino effect surrounding the failure of talks. “A nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and it is also an existential threat to the United States,” Witkoff said shortly after at a New York gala for Israel’s United Hatzalah emergency medical services. “We must stand together resolutely so that Iran does not go nuclear, no matter what the cost to prevent it.” Five rounds into Trump’s ongoing efforts, the final sticking points remain centered around whether or not Iran will be permitted any amount of Uranium enrichment for a civil nuclear energy program, a product of ongoing influence campaigns within Trump’s orbit between GOP foreign-policy hawks and isolationists. Trump and Witkoff have recently taken an increasingly hardline position, effectively arriving at a policy of zero enrichment, something Trump himself is “less confident” Iran will accept. With talks between the U.S. and Iran set to resume on Sunday in Oman, the question looms: Are the words and actions of the past 24 hours a precursor to military escalation, or is it a last-ditch leverage ploy from a president who has long viewed himself as the world’s most skilled negotiator? While Trump may think his actions could lead all parties involved to believe he means business, this would not be the world’s first conflict that parties unwittingly sleepwalked into under the false premise that a rhetorical escalation would lead to practical de-escalation. A big part of the equation, meanwhile, rests with Israel and whether Prime Minister Netanyahu feels he has enough capital with Trump to take his long-desired preemptive strikes before U.S.-Iran negotiations officially reach failure. Trump has explicitly told Netanyahu several times in recent months that it would be inappropriate for Israel to undermine diplomatic efforts with military action. “I don’t want them going in,” he said publicly on Thursday. “It would blow it. It might help it, actually, but it could also blow it.” Should Netanyahu make this decision unilaterally, endangering U.S. troops and interests, Trump may feel less inclined to provide Netanyahu with precious diplomatic cover, knowing full well he is the only world power still in Israel’s corner. In the hours since the U.S. moved its pieces on the chessboard, tensions have only escalated, with the IAEA’s censure of Iran and Tehran’s vow to enhance parts of its nuclear program. If Trump’s gambit was meant to be a negotiating tactic, it may end up backfiring regardless. |
Leave a Reply