Donald Trump’s Middle Eastern dilemma: end the war or enter It

A US-based Iran expert says that President Donald Trump now has just two choices in the Iran-Israel conflict: end the war or enter it. Trita Parsi, author and executive vice-president of the Washington-based Quincy Institute, argues that “Israel’s war of choice with Iran is proving far less decisive than President Donald Trump initially believed when he praised Israel’s performance as ‘excellent.’”

Parsi noted in an essay he authored on June 15 that Israel’s opening strike on June 13 was undoubtedly a tactical success. “Caught off guard by the assumption that Israel wouldn’t act before the sixth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the US—scheduled to take place in Muscat, Oman, on June 15—Iranian leaders had taken no precautions. Many were asleep in their homes in northern Tehran, alongside their families, when Israeli strikes killed them in their beds. Iran’s air defences were also unprepared and inactive,” he wrote.

Parsi, whose family had to flee Iran following the Islamic Revolution of 1979 due to fears of political repression, later settled in Sweden.

He explained that while Israel had aimed to eliminate as many Iranian commanders as possible to disrupt the command-and-control structure and paralyse Iran’s military response, Tehran initially appeared subdued. It was unclear whether it retained any meaningful capacity to retaliate.

Parsi, an alumnus of Johns Hopkins University, Uppsala University, and the Stockholm University School of Business, said that “impressed by Israel’s early success, Trump moved quickly to claim credit for the operation, despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio having declared just hours earlier that the strikes were a ‘unilateral action’ by Israel and that the US was not involved.” He invoked the adage, “Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan”—apparently to poke fun at Washington.

However, Parsi notes that within 18 hours, Iran had restructured its chain of command, activated its air defences, and, most critically, launched four missile barrages aimed primarily at Israeli air defence systems. “Many of the missiles penetrated Israel’s multilayered defences, lighting up the Tel Aviv skyline as they struck their targets—including a direct hit on Israel’s Ministry of Defense,” he wrote.

That Tehran could mount such a response just hours after losing several top military commanders was the first clear sign that Israel’s initial success would be short-lived, he added.

Parsi went on to state: “Although Iran continued to absorb heavy blows on Saturday—including Israeli strikes on oil refineries, Mehrabad Airport in Tehran, and other civilian and economic infrastructure—it responded with additional missile barrages. These were fewer in number but notably more effective. As Israel’s air defences degrade, Tehran is likely to shift to missiles with larger warheads, increasing the scale of destruction.”

Despite inflicting significant damage on the Natanz nuclear site, Parsi points out that Israel has failed to penetrate the far more critical and heavily fortified Fordow facility.

“As a result, the actual impact on Iran’s nuclear programme appears limited. Reports indicate that the US military has provided its missile defence capabilities to shoot down Iranian drones and missiles, but it has so far not joined Israel in offensive strikes,” Parsi wrote.

An expert on the region, Parsi is the author of multiple books, including the award-winning Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States; A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran; and Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy.

He emphasises that it is becoming increasingly clear to Washington that Israel’s war of choice is far from a success, and a decisive outcome may not materialise at all. “While Israel likely holds escalation dominance, it faces a critical disadvantage: it has fewer air defence interceptors than Iran has long-range missiles. Israel needs a swift and decisive victory—but a prolonged war of attrition may ultimately favour Iran. And such a victory now seems out of reach,” wrote Parsi, who was earlier president of the National Iranian American Council.

Parsi also explores Israel’s new challenges as it knocks on Trump’s door with fresh demands. “What began as ‘Give us the green light and Israel will bomb Iran for America’ quickly shifted to ‘Hurry up, America, and bomb Iran for Israel!’” he stated.

Israel faces two key challenges with this request, he argues. “First, seeking America’s blessing to go to war is a far lighter ask than requesting America’s direct military involvement. Trump, unexpectedly, agreed to the former—but it would be exceptionally unwise for him to agree to the latter.”

“Secondly, as noted earlier, Trump likes winners—and by asking him to intervene, Israel is signalling that it’s losing. It has failed to eliminate Iran’s regime or cripple its nuclear programme and is now absorbing unexpected blows in return. Why would Trump risk American lives, endanger his presidency, and join a war he didn’t start—just to rescue Israel from a failed and unprovoked conflict? Trump prefers to take credit for victories, not inherit blame for someone else’s potential fiasco,” Parsi wrote.

Parsi rightly points out that it was Israel that persuaded Trump to adopt the zero-enrichment negotiating stance in the US-Iran talks. “Had Trump stuck to his original red line—no weaponisation—he might now be on the verge of a historic nuclear agreement with Iran,” Parsi avers.

With its unprovoked war, Parsi says, Israel has undermined Trump’s negotiating position in two key ways. “First, support for acquiring a nuclear weapon has surged among Iran’s elite and broader society in response to the Israeli bombings. This has raised the political cost for Tehran to agree to limit enrichment to civilian levels, making a deal more difficult,” he wrote.

“Second, America’s backing of Israel’s attack—coupled with Trump’s self-congratulatory rhetoric—has led Tehran to believe he deliberately lulled Iran into a false sense of security to boost Israel’s chances. As a result, what little trust remained in Trump as a negotiating partner has further eroded. And the less trust there is, the narrower the path to a deal,” he elaborated.

Parsi is not entirely pessimistic. He says a deal still remains possible—but there is a caveat. “If Trump and Iran return to the negotiating table, he must quickly abandon the self-defeating zero-enrichment demand championed by Israel—the very stance that gave birth to this needless and messy war,” he concludes.

Donald TrumpIran-Israel conflictMiddle East crisisNuclear arsenalthe zero-enrichmentWeb Exclusive