Donald Trump declared a ceasefire that would last forever. Or perhaps not. Within hours, he had attacked both Israel and Iran for breaking the deal he took credit for, though there seemed to be a precarious peace. But the volatility of events owes much to the unpredictability of Mr. Trumps own rhetoric and actions. The Middle East crisis will continue to overshadow the NATO summit in The Hague, intended to shore up support for Ukraine.
It is just over two weeks since Mr. Trump told Israels prime minister not to bomb Irans nuclear facilities, hoping for a deal with Tehran. Benjamin Netanyahu ignored him and within hours, as Fox News celebrated the Israeli offensive, the president sought to associate himself with it. He demanded Irans unconditional surrender and threatened its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; then, on June 19, said he would take two weeks to decide whether to strike.
That appears to have been deliberate misdirection: the U.S. military bombed nuclear facilities only days later. But even among administration officials, allies and Pentagon staff, there was reportedly confusion over what he envisaged. Senior administration figures suggested that the U.S. was solely targeting the nuclear programme, hours before Mr. Trump again mooted regime change. Then, on June 23, he announced a complete and total ceasefire. That its terms remain mysterious does not inspire confidence in its durability. Within hours, a visibly angry president was lashing out at both Israel and Iran for breaking the truce, telling reporters: They dont know what the f**k they are doing.
Pot, meet kettle. Mr. Trump is a creature of impulse, eager for quick results and lavish praise, reacting to the latest talking head and the last person to speak to him among them, on June 24, Vladimir Putin, though the U.S. president said he had declined Moscows help with Iran.
He also posted that it was his great honour to make it possible for China to still buy oil from Iran. His focus on Moscow and Beijing is one constant in what one might generously describe as his foreign policy. But even the knowns support for Israel, a desire to keep inflation down and avoid foreign quagmires, the longing for a Nobel peace prize are buffeted by events and the presidents magnetic attraction to whatever looks like it might bring glory.
Mr. Netanyahu shares Mr. Trumps focus on how decisions affect personal political interests; there are reports he may call a snap election while riding high from the offensive against Iran. He has been consistent in his enmity towards Tehran and in maintaining that it cannot be dealt with through negotiation. He is keen to keep international attention away from Gaza, where the carnage continues, and may seek to tempt Mr. Trump into further action. The whereabouts of Irans enriched uranium is unknown, and it surely has greater reason to desire a nuclear deterrent.
Richard Nixons madman theory was that adversaries might back down if they believed that the U.S. president was truly crazy. International relations scholars disagree over the value of such stratagems. But Nixons play had at least been gamed out, was persistently pursued, and had clear goals. Mr. Trumps illegal attack on Iran was a reckless gamble, which history will judge. June 23’s ceasefire declaration was welcome. Diplomacy, not war, is needed. But the Trump approach remains chaotic. And as the presidents intentions and messages proliferate, the risks multiply.
Leave a Reply