When it comes to foreign conflicts, there are two President Trumps.
There is the firebrand isolationist of the 2016 presidential campaign, who as president set the stage for the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and, in 2019, called off an airstrike on Iran with only 10 minutes to go.
And there is the president who, in early 2020, authorized a drone strike to kill Iran’s top security and intelligence commander.
This week, Trump gave himself up to two weeks to decide which approach he will take toward the war that Israel began last week by attacking Iran. The extra time could allow him to expand his arsenal of options and calibrate the thorny politics of any decision. But it will also come with real consequences for Israelis and Iranians.
Today, I called my colleague Patrick Kingsley, The Times’s bureau chief in Jerusalem. He explained how Trump’s delay is shaping calculations on both sides — and how, for civilians, two weeks could feel like a very long time indeed.
Can you describe life for Israeli and Iranian civilians in this moment?
There’s a mood of terror and fear in both countries as the airstrikes come down. In Israel, civilians are rushing, sometimes several times a day, into bomb shelters to avoid getting hit by Iranian missiles that have regularly been fired into civilian areas. At least two dozen Israelis have been killed. In Iran, where there are far fewer shelters, the death toll is higher than 200, which includes many civilians. Following Israeli evacuation orders, often issued at very short notice, huge numbers of Iranian civilians have been forced to flee Tehran — a city of roughly 10 million. That has led to massive traffic jams and gas shortages, all against the backdrop of prolonged internet blackouts.
We don’t know if an American strike would end the suffering. But two weeks of diplomacy doesn’t immediately end it, either. It locks us in for up to two weeks of continued fighting between Israel and Iran, killing civilians in both countries.
What’s the argument in favor of a possible two-week window for diplomacy?
The main argument is that it creates a chance to resolve the war without the U.S. getting involved directly, and potentially making a bad situation worse. If the U.S. strikes Fordo, the Iranian nuclear plant buried deep underground, that might prompt Iran to retaliate against U.S. interests, including U.S. bases and embassies, around the Middle East. It could lead to Iran disrupting the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route. In turn, that could force Trump to retaliate against Iran, and then you could suddenly be sucked into this escalatory cycle that might lead to a much bigger war.
What’s the argument against the pause?
The counterargument is that it may simply delay the war’s endgame, dragging out the pain for civilians in both countries. While politicians spend two weeks searching for a diplomatic solution, Israel will likely continue to strike Iran, and vice versa. A U.S. attack could make things worse, but it could also give Israel a pretext to end the war. Without a U.S. intervention, the war will simply continue.
From Washington’s perspective, the delay also makes things harder for one of the United States’ key strategic allies — Israel. The longer the war goes on, the more that strain will be placed on the Israeli economy, as well as on its air defense system. Its missile interceptors are dwindling, potentially putting more civilians at risk during Iranian missile barrages.
How confident were Israeli leaders earlier this week that Trump was going to join their attacks on Iran? And has that confidence faded now?
Our sense earlier in the week was that the Israeli leadership was fairly confident that President Trump would get involved, and that perspective was bolstered by what the president himself seemed to hint at publicly. Now, after the delay that the White House announced on Thursday, I think there’s a bit less confidence among Israeli leaders that Trump is going to get involved. As a result, there is some talk that Israel might try to go it alone in some more limited capacity.
Israelis still hope that as time goes on and Trump sees that the Iranians are not willing to compromise, he will revert to the original plan and strike Iran. But there is probably less confidence about that.
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched this attack, he did so alone. Was he counting on eventual U.S. involvement? And what does continuing to go it alone look like if he doesn’t get that?
I don’t think anyone counts on President Trump. He can change his mind in a minute and then change his mind again. But I think there was certainly the hope that if the campaign went well, then eventually Israel might be able to count on more direct American offensive support.
If that support is not forthcoming, Israeli officials are talking about a more limited Israeli operation against Fordo, which Israel wants to destroy before ending the war. Experts say that this site, in northern Iran, would be best attacked using the kinds of heavy bunker-busting bombs that only the United States has in its arsenal. But Israel could still attack with the smaller missiles that it has at its own disposal.
And Israel could also — although this is much more risky — deploy commandos on the ground to mount some kind of sabotage operation. If those alternative options were any better than — or as good as what the American military has to offer in this scenario — we already would have seen Israel roll those out.
How does a pause of up to two weeks shape Iran’s options?
It gives Iran a few more days to come to the negotiating table and potentially make the kinds of compromises that would prevent the U.S. from getting involved militarily. The U.S. and Israel want Iran to end its nuclear enrichment program because they fear it would allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb. So far, Iran has refused to do that. And Trump’s hope is likely that the looming threat of U.S. military involvement might prompt Iran to finally back down without the U.S. actually needing to send in its warplanes.
Have we seen any evidence that that’s happening?
Not in their public statements. The Iranian government has been defiant. They’ve said that they won’t back down, and certainly not under duress. And it’s possible that in a week’s time, or even two weeks time, we may still be roughly where we are.
Our conversation was condensed and edited for clarity.
IN HIS WORDS
No hesitation about these attacks
Rather than focusing on his big foreign dilemma, President Trump on Friday used his social media account to talk mostly about various domestic adversaries — including one very familiar foil. My colleague Chris Cameron explains.
President Trump’s attacking of his predecessor — a favorite pastime online — seems increasingly curious as the Biden era recedes into the past.
Maybe it’s a crutch, or a source of comfort.
On Friday, as Trump grappled with perhaps the biggest decision of his presidency, he took to his social media site to slam former President Joe Biden in a series of posts. One combined boasts of success in curtailing border crossings with the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him and with the suggestion that he could appoint a special counsel to investigate it. “Let the work begin!” he wrote.
The Moment
Eye on the sky
The news this week has revolved around questions of whether or not to deploy American military might in Iran. My colleague Kenny Holston caught a striking glimpse of one slice of the nation’s air fleet after he arrived with President Trump in Calgary, Canada, ahead of the Group of 7 summit.
Kenny was standing by the nose of Air Force One on the tarmac when a V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft flew into the frame.
ONE LAST THING
‘Tulsi wants to be a star’
Intrigue has swirled in Washington this week about Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat and a sharp critic of intervention overseas who serves as President Trump’s director of national intelligence. Gabbard did not attend a key Camp David meeting at which Trump was presented with assessments of Iran’s nuclear program days before the Israelis attacked. And on Tuesday, the president contradicted her in public.
My colleagues Julian Barnes, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan have a deep look at Gabbard’s weakened standing in the president’s orbit. He berated her this month for a video she posted that warned of “nuclear annihilation,” they report, and he is distrustful of what he believes are her attempts to position herself for higher office.
“Bobby’s a star,” Trump told one associate, contrasting Gabbard with his health and human services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Tulsi? Tulsi wants to be a star.”
Chris Cameron contributed to this newsletter.
Jess Bidgood is a managing correspondent for The Times and writes the On Politics newsletter, a guide to how President Trump is changing Washington, the country and its politics.
Patrick Kingsley is The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, leading coverage of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
The post Trump and the Great Wait for Israelis and Iranians appeared first on New York Times.
