Trump walks a tightrope in Israel’s war with Iran

As Israeli fighter jets pummelled military and government targets across Iran in a massive air campaign, the United States found itself trying to maintain an uneasy balance between public denial and private complicity. President Donald Trump had spent the past few months demanding restraint from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pushing for a renewed nuclear deal with Iran. However, he now insists he was fully informed about the Israeli attacks and fully endorsed it. Such mixed messaging from the White House has left analysts and allies confused, forcing them to question the real nature of the American role in a war that could reshape the entire Middle East.

In the early hours following the Israeli assault, the White House scrambled to shape the narrative. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was quick to emphasise that the US had no role in the operation, calling it a “unilateral action” by Israel. Yet by Friday morning, Trump had shifted the administration’s tone. Posting on Truth Social, he claimed he had been “in the loop” and suggested that the operation marked the failure of a 60-day ultimatum he had given Iran to return to negotiations. “Today is day 61,” he wrote, asserting that Iran had squandered its chances to make a deal.

This attempt to recast the Israeli strikes as part of a larger US strategy highlighted a growing contradiction in Trump’s approach: distancing America from direct involvement while embracing the political benefits of Israel’s military success. He told the Wall Street Journal that he was not caught off guard, insisting the administration knew what was going on. Later, he reiterated his support for Israel in another short interview with CNN, brushing aside Rubio’s earlier statement and describing US backing for the Jewish state as unprecedented.

Trump’s flip-flop has brought to the fore divisions within the Republican Party and the MAGA camp. In fact, the president is finding it difficult to balance the isolationists who are wary of yet another Middle East entanglement and the pro-Israel zealots who believe that the strikes were long overdue. Right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk noted that the online conservative community was deeply divided over the US response. Emails and messages from his audience, he said, overwhelmingly opposed further involvement.

Trump’s ambiguity appears to reflect this tension. While he has taken credit for the Israeli action, he continues to insist that US forces played no active role in the assault. However, recent moves by the Pentagon suggest otherwise. American warships and military assets have been repositioned in the region in anticipation of Iranian retaliation. The US also resupplied Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system in the weeks before the strike. Furthermore, B-2 and B-52 bombers have been stationed at Diego Garcia, a remote US airbase in the Indian Ocean, from where strikes on Iran could be launched if necessary.

Although Washington claims it did not participate in the offensive, US intelligence agencies would have been aware of Israel’s preparations. A campaign of this scale—involving over 200 fighter jets and more than 100 targets—is virtually impossible to conceal. Analysts argue that Israeli media reports suggesting full coordination with Washington may have been designed to force the US into accepting a fait accompli.

The Israeli government reportedly gave Washington advanced warning of the attack, though how detailed that coordination was remains unclear. Some Israeli officials have claimed Trump feigned disapproval to maintain diplomatic cover, giving Israel a de facto green light. But other analysts believe the Netanyahu government sought to pressure the US into supporting the offensive by moving ahead regardless of Washington’s hesitations.

Trump’s own words before and after the strike underline the contradiction. Just hours before the Israeli jets took off, he told reporters that a strike could undermine diplomatic efforts and said he had advised Israel to hold off. Nonetheless, the US began evacuating non-essential personnel from Baghdad and other regional outposts less than 24 hours before the attacks. The rushed nature of the withdrawal raised questions about whether the administration had underestimated the immediacy of the Israeli action or was deliberately downplaying its foreknowledge.

Defence analyst Rosemary Kelanic told The Guardian that the evacuation timeline left little margin for safety. She questioned what exactly the president knew when given that such an extensive operation would likely have been detected by US surveillance and satellite systems. Trump, however, has insisted the administration was not caught off guard and suggested that further Israeli operations were already in the pipeline.

While Trump initially opposed any military strike that could derail talks with Iran, he has now positioned himself as a key player behind Israel’s action. His shift was interpreted by many as a calculated political move. Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations said that Israel had made a strategic gamble that Trump would ultimately back the operation, and it appeared to have paid off.

Despite the firepower deployed, Israel’s first wave of strikes did not target Iran’s most fortified nuclear sites. Facilities at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz remained largely intact or suffered only light damage. Instead, the focus was on Iran’s top leadership, military command and air defence systems. Experts argue this was not a direct assault on the nuclear programme but a decapitation strike aimed at paralysing Iran’s response capability.

Nicole Grajewski, a specialist in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, told Vox that the strikes were primarily directed at command and control centres rather than enrichment facilities. This, she suggested, may indicate the operation’s objectives could evolve over time, particularly if Iran retaliates.

Iran’s response has been cautious so far. Military commanders warned that US forces in the region could be targeted if they were seen as complicit. Iran has never favoured a direct confrontation with the United States and has always chosen to act through its proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Even now, a direct strike on American bases in the Middle East or an attempt to block the crucial oil shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz remains unlikely unless the conflict worsens into an all-out war.

Nonetheless, US officials are preparing for contingencies. The Pentagon is reportedly debating additional aid to Israel and the replenishment of its military stockpiles, which could become a flashpoint in Congress. The political implications are equally significant. Trump came to office promising to end “forever wars” and reshape American foreign policy around an “America First” doctrine. Critics now say his embrace of Israeli military action marks a sharp reversal.

Stephen Bannon, Trump’s former strategist and a vocal voice within the MAGA movement, warned that the US must avoid being dragged into another regional war. He praised Israel’s decision to act in its own national interest but cautioned that the US must prioritise its own defence. Similarly, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute described the administration as “shouting from the sidelines” and argued that Trump was merely treading water.

For now, the conflict threatens to fracture the fragile coalition Trump has built around his foreign policy. While some Republicans rally behind Israel, others see the danger of being pulled into a broader war. Meanwhile, Iran’s leaders appear unconvinced by US denials of involvement and are weighing their next move carefully.

Trump, ever the showman, closed out a turbulent 48 hours with a declaration that summed up his pivot: “I gave Iran a chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to ‘just do it,’ but no matter how close they got, they just couldn’t get it done.”