The United States attacked three nuclear targets in Iran on Saturday night. Experts see how US President Donald Trump is fulfilling a long-held desire to weaken Iran. “He couldn’t go back.”
Trump spoke of a “very successful attack” and says it is “now time for peace.” The attacks, in Trump’s view, would prevent further escalation and bring Iran back to the negotiating table. Iran had previously said it would only talk about a possible nuclear deal again if the Israeli attacks stopped.
“He’s trying to sell it as a problem that needs to be solved,” political scientist Chris Nijhuis tells NU.nl. But Trump himself caused that problem. “He withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran that former President Barack Obama had concluded in his first term.”
Therefore, Trump’s “sales pitch” is mainly for show, thinks political scientist and America expert Raymond Mens. Behind Trump’s alleged good intentions not to further escalate the conflict, other goals may be hidden. After the Israeli attacks on Iran, Trump faced a choice: to intervene or not. “And Trump couldn’t go back, because he had already threatened attacks if Iran didn’t agree to peace.”
Otherwise, he might be seen as a “dog that barks but doesn’t bite,” Mens says. “Or then only Israel could take the credit for weakening the Iranian nuclear program.” And that is a long-held wish of the Republican party in the US, Nijhuis adds. “Together, Israel and the US have thrown the nuclear program back in time.”
‘Prime opportunity to attack Iran’
But it’s not just about whether or not to develop an Iranian nuclear weapon. Mens sees how Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu places the conflict in a broader context by speaking about Iran’s “destabilizing factor” in the Middle East. “Israel wants to weaken Iran, and therefore the US wants that too.” Israel and the US have had a close alliance for decades.
This was the perfect opportunity for Israel to put that plan into action, Nijhuis says. During the Gaza war, Israel weakened several groups supported by Iran, such as Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah. “As a result, the chance of a strong counterattack has become smaller. Israel can hit Iran without too great consequences.”
Trump breaks election promise
The US intervention in the conflict with Iran exposes Trump’s contradiction. He promised his voters to be a president of peace, but at the same time he is not afraid to violate international law and escalate the conflict, says Nijhuis.
Mens speaks of a “big hurdle” that Trump had to overcome to break his election promise. “He has opposed former presidents under whom the US was involved in wars.”
It is therefore still questionable whether Trump will gain popularity with his supporters. An earlier poll among the American population showed that 60 percent are in favor of a diplomatic solution in Iran. This shows no broad support for military action. “But it’s always different when a situation actually occurs,” says Nijhuis. “We will have to wait and see how the conflict develops.”
Little criticism from Europe is ‘worrying’
Trump does not have to expect much criticism from Europe, the experts think. So far, no European government leaders have spoken out negatively about the attacks. That is worrying, Nijhuis thinks. “Europe is always full of international law, but when it is violated by allies, it goes silent.”
International law is meant to protect everyone, but in this way the law of the strongest would apply, he says. “That’s nice if you’re the strongest, but it’s not how you should want the world to work.”