In a statement by the full Editorial Board, headlined “Trump’s Fateful Choice on Iran,” Financial Times on June 18 took due note of the bind in which U.S. President Donald Trump finds himself. “Donald Trump has been weighing one of the most fateful choices of his presidency. Without direct U.S. military assistance, Israel’s strikes on Iran may be unable to destroy enough of the Islamic republic’s nuclear program to prevent it from dashing for a bomb. Yet direct American involvement would risk sucking the U.S. into what Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly sees as a quest for regime change in Iran. The consequences could be an escalating conflict that would destabilize the whole region—and beyond.”
Once Trump gave the green light to Israel for its air attack against Iran, the die was cast. If he jumps in directly, “many of Trump’s MAGA supporters would view it as a betrayal of his promises not to drag America into new conflicts…. U.S. intervention would give Tehran a pretext to strike U.S. energy assets and bases across the Middle East…. This could trigger turmoil on a larger scale than the U.S.-led debacle in Iraq two decades ago.”
