Nournews: In the early hours of June 13, a limited and ambiguous strike by Israel targeted Iranian soil, triggering widespread political and security reactions in the region. Analysts immediately outlined two distinct scenarios behind this move. The first scenario assumes a unilateral, rogue operation by Israel. The second scenario was presented as part of a broader American plan centered on Trump.
While the two narratives are different, they present an image of disruption in the security planning of the front opposing Iran. However, what has attracted the most attention is not only the roots of Israel’s invasion but also the possibility of the direct involvement of the Trump administration in conflicts with Iran and its implications for U.S. interests in the region.
The first scenario has been shaped based on the assumption that it was a rogue invasion by Israel based on incorrect calculations about Iran’s capabilities and aiming at strategic surprise. In this scenario, the U.S. is only aware of the process but has no active role in making the decisions.
The assumption is aligned with the record of preemptive and independent operations by Israel (like the attack on Syrian reactors or the assassination of Iranian scientists). In addition to this, accepting the responsibility for the attacks officially by Tel Aviv can be a sign of trying to manage the consequences by Israel. However, the complexity of the operation, the level at which information has been collaborated, and the international consequences of it raise questions about the US’s lack of involvement in the attack. On the other hand, Washington’s tactical silence and indirect reaction boost the possibility of a kind of hidden collaboration between the US and Israel.
The second scenario has a more structural look at the topic. According to this analysis, Israel acts as the first arm of a multilayered plan with its ultimate goal being determining the final destiny with Iran under the condition that Trump’s team thinks Iran is in a weak position. According to this approach, the US has wanted Tel Aviv to pay the initial cost of the act so that in case of failure or serious reaction from Iran, it could retreat or change its position. Within this framework, the recent attack is not an endgame but is a measure to evaluate Iran’s reaction and the region’s readiness for the next phase. Although this scenario seems to be more logical, it faces a challenge in one key point: the heavy costs of military involvement for the US, particularly at the economic and political levels.
From this viewpoint, a key question arises: If Trump has really stood behind the scene of such a scenario, why should he enter a war that can destroy all his economic and geopolitical achievements in the Persian Gulf? The answer to this question needs getting familiar with different dimensions of Trump’s motivations.
First, Trump as a political player is not only seeking to provide security for Israel but also is seeking to fixate an image of himself as an authority in domestic policy. He needs to offer a decisive and uncompromising image of himself to the US public opinion and the far-right groups. Threatening war is only a tool for propaganda and bargaining, not necessarily an introduction to involvement in conflict.
On the other hand, entering a real war has disastrous consequences for the interests of the US. The Persian Gulf, as the main route of global energy, will turn into a center of economic crisis in case of any broad military conflict. Disruption in oil exports, a spike in global energy prices, international reactions, and the danger of the conflict expanding beyond the region are only some of the consequences of such a war. In addition to that, the United States has invested huge sums of money in economic projects in the region, the most important of which is a $3.2 trillion economic deal with Persian Gulf littoral states made during Trump’s recent trip to the region. Entering an all-out war with Iran means the loss of credibility of these deals, the fall of financial markets, and the halt of Trump’s trade dream in the region.
Although Trump threatens, he is not a person to get involved in an unpredictable crisis. The experience from his first term showed that even in critical situations like the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, he refused to enter a direct war. Therefore, it is more likely that the recent attack by Israel has been done with a limited green light from Trump and aimed at creating psychological pressure on Iran, and the US never really intended to enter an all-out war with Iran.
However, playing with the shadow of war can always cause war. If Israel’s miscalculations continue, either the ambiance of war or those miscalculations may be guided toward a wrong path. It is possible that the predictability of the future of war, built on the ground of miscalculations, will become harder. If this happens, not only economic projects but also the whole global credibility of the US will fall victim to the strategic gamble of Trump.
NOURNEWS