Netanyahu outplayed Trump on Iran. Now the US risks being mired in another war | Mohamad Bazzi

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Israel's Airstrikes on Iran Complicate U.S. Diplomatic Efforts and Raise Conflict Risks"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.8
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

In a significant escalation of tensions in the Middle East, Israel executed a series of airstrikes early Friday morning targeting over 100 sites in Iran, which included key nuclear facilities, ballistic missile production plants, and air defense systems. This surprise offensive resulted in the deaths of several high-ranking Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists, prompting the Iranian government to label the strikes a "declaration of war." The repercussions of this military action have raised alarms among Western powers, who are now concerned about the potential for a broader regional conflict that could involve the United States and other Middle Eastern nations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed these strikes as a necessary measure to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, but they also appear to undermine ongoing diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the Trump administration, which had been aimed at reaching a deal to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for economic relief from sanctions.

The geopolitical implications of Netanyahu's actions are profound, particularly as they challenge Trump's previous approach to Iran. Despite Trump's past reluctance to support military action against Iran, Netanyahu's brazen strikes indicate a shift in the dynamics of U.S.-Israel relations, suggesting that Netanyahu might have received at least implicit approval from the Trump administration. Following the attacks, Trump expressed his belief that Iran could still be persuaded to negotiate, while his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, emphasized that the U.S. was not involved in the strikes and reaffirmed the priority of protecting American forces in the region. However, these developments have complicated Trump's position as a peacemaker, as Netanyahu's actions could entangle the U.S. in another military conflict in the Middle East, undermining Trump's stated desire to avoid further wars. This situation highlights the precarious balance of power and the potential for escalation, as Netanyahu's confidence in U.S. support emboldens him to take risks that could destabilize the region and lead to severe consequences for both nations involved and their allies.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article brings attention to the recent Israeli airstrikes against Iran, arguing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strategically outmaneuvered former U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. It highlights the implications of these actions, particularly concerning U.S. involvement and the potential for wider regional conflict.

Strategic Maneuvering in International Relations

Netanyahu's attack on Iran is portrayed as a decisive move that not only aims to thwart Iran's nuclear development but also to sabotage ongoing negotiations between Tehran and the Trump administration. The narrative suggests that Netanyahu acted with a level of confidence that may have stemmed from perceived support or at least acquiescence from Trump, despite Trump's reluctance to engage in military action.

Responses from U.S. Officials

The article details the contrasting responses from U.S. officials following the strikes. While Trump maintains a stance advocating for potential negotiations with Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasizes that the U.S. is not involved in the strikes and prioritizes the protection of American forces. This dissonance among U.S. leaders illustrates the complexities of U.S.-Israeli relations and the varying approaches to dealing with Iran.

Perception Management

The framing of the article appears to cultivate a particular perception of the Israeli strike as a reckless yet calculated escalation that could lead to broader conflict. The use of phrases like “declaration of war” by the Iranian regime and the urgency expressed by Western powers to prevent escalation further underscores the gravity of the situation.

Potential Omissions and Risks

There might be an implication of omitted details regarding the historical context of U.S.-Iran relations and the broader implications of military actions in the region. The article may gloss over the potential for diplomatic solutions or the consequences of military engagement, possibly leading readers to focus solely on the immediate conflict.

Manipulative Elements

The article leans toward a perspective that could be considered manipulative in its language and framing. By emphasizing Netanyahu's strategic success over Trump and the imminent threat of war, it may evoke strong emotional responses and a sense of urgency among readers. This choice of language, combined with the depiction of Iran as a clear aggressor, could serve to rally support for military action or reaffirm existing biases against Iran.

Trustworthiness of the Information

In assessing the reliability of the article, the use of specific details such as the number of targets hit and the casualties lends a degree of credibility. However, the interpretation of motivations and the framing of actions suggest a bias that could impact the overall trustworthiness of the narrative. The article appears to be grounded in factual events but shaped by a particular viewpoint that may not encompass the entire complexity of the situation.

The article presents a dramatic account of the situation, focusing on Netanyahu's actions and the resulting geopolitical ramifications. The implications for U.S. foreign policy and potential military entanglements are significant and resonate with ongoing concerns regarding stability in the Middle East.

In summary, the article operates within a narrative that emphasizes conflict and diplomatic failure while potentially downplaying alternative perspectives. The focus on military actions and strategic maneuvering creates an impression of urgency and danger, aligning with particular political narratives.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Before dawn on Friday, Israel unleashed a wave of air strikes against more than100 targets in Iran, including nuclear facilities, ballistic missile factories and air defense systems. The surprise Israeli attack also killed some of Iran’s most senior military commanders and nuclear scientists. The Iranian regime called it a “declaration of war” – and western powers raced to prevent a wider regional conflict that could draw in the US along with other countries in the Middle East.

While the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, claims that he’s trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the attack is as much intended to blow up ongoing negotiations between Tehran and Donald Trump’s administration. While Trump’s overall foreign policy has been a disaster, for months he hadresisted Netanyahu’s pleasto give Israel a green light to attack Iran, with US assistance. Trump insisted he wanted a chance to negotiate a deal with Iran’s leaders that would compel Tehran to give up its nuclear program in exchange for relief from US and other international sanctions.

After Friday’s attacks, Trump suggested the Iranian regime could still be convinced to negotiate,saying Tehran“must make a deal, before there is nothing left”. He added that Israel could carry out further attacks that would be “even more brutal”. Before Trump’s aggressive comments, his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, had gone out of his way to explain that Israel had taken“unilateral action”and warned Tehran against targeting US military bases or embassies in the Middle East. “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,” Rubio said.

It’s hard to imagine that Netanyahu would have launched such a brazen attack against Iran without at least some tacit support from Trump. Like all modern US presidents, Trump has lavished Israel withbillions of dollars in weaponsand has undermined international law and institutions like the UN security council to shield Israel from criticism. But Trump also prizes his reputation as a dealmaker, and he had invested significant political capital in negotiating an agreement with Iran. In a call this week, the president reportedlytold the prime ministerhe preferred diplomacy.

By attacking Iran and torpedoing the negotiations, Netanyahu outplayed Trump – and the Israeli leader may well ensnare the US in a new Middle East conflict that Trump insists he does not want. Since Netanyahu unleashed multiple wars in the region after the Hamas attack on southernIsraelin October 2023, he’s confident that the US will always bail him out. Even after Israel launched a war on Gaza, a two-month ground invasion of Lebanon and frequent attacks on Syria, it continues to receive virtually unlimited US weapons and political support from Washington.

Is it any surprise that Netanyahu has been emboldened to take greater risks that undermine several of Israel’s neighbors and now threaten to engulf the wider Middle East in a regional war? Starting with steadfast support from Joe Biden’s administration and continuing with Trump, Netanyahu knows that the US will always protect Israel from the costs of its escalation and adventurism. And US taxpayers are footing the bill: from October 2023 through September 2024, theUS provided Israelwith nearly $18bn in weapons, while the Pentagon spent another $4.9bn on its own military activities in the Middle East. That’s $22.7bn in US funding that enabled Netanyahu to prolong Israel’s brutal war on Gaza, an offensive in which Israel hascommitted war crimesand sparked accusations of genocide.

For its part, the Trump administration announced in February that it would send more than $8bn innew weapons to Israel– continuing Biden’s failed policy of unrestrained arms shipments and unwavering political support for Netanyahu. Trump, the supposedly grand dealmaker, has so far failed to use the most effective leverage he has over the Israeli premier: the provision of US weapons and political cover.

Despite Trump’spersistent claimthat he wants to be a peacemaker who ends America’s legacy of forever wars, he now risks becoming yet another US president who is mired in a disastrous conflict in the Middle East – thanks to his refusal to restrain Netanyahu, a US ally who has not yet paid any price for his warmongering.

In his inaugural address in January, Trump reinforced his desire to establish himself as a mediator who will end global conflicts, including the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and avoid new wars entirely. “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,”he said. Trump had also stewed for years over the fact that his predecessor, Barack Obama, won the Nobel peace prize during his first year in office in 2009, while Trump was passed over for the honor, even though he had brokered a series of diplomatic deals in 2020, known as the Abraham Accords, between Israel and several Arab states.

If Trump has any hope of winning a Nobel prize – or even salvaging a minor legacy as a peacemaker – he will need to fix theIranagreement he tore up seven years ago.

In 2018, during his first term, Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from a deal that was signed by Obama, and had taken years for Iran to negotiate with six world powers, under which Tehran limited its nuclear enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. The 2015 agreement, which Trump had called a “disaster”, allowed Iran to continue producing nuclear fuel at low levels, enough to operate nuclear power plants but not to produce weapons. After Trump abandoned the original deal, Iran moved closer to developing a nuclear weapon than ever before. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as of early this year, Tehran hadenriched enough uraniumto produce six nuclear weapons, although Iran would still need up to a year of additional work to develop an actual nuclear warhead and deploy it on a missile.

In the early weeks of his second term, Trump seemed eager to negotiate a new deal with Iran:he sent a letterto Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying the US wanted to restart negotiations that had been abandoned by the Biden administration. As he often does in negotiations with foes and enemies alike, Trump then issued a threat, warning Iran’s leaders that if diplomacy failed, they would be subjected to “bombing the likes of which they have never seen before”.

In March, Trump dispatched his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to lead a team of US negotiators to meet with top Iranian officials in mostly indirect talks mediated by Oman. Since then, Iran and the US have held five rounds of talks. The next round of negotiations was supposed to be held on Sunday, with Witkoff heading to Oman.

During its attacks on Friday,Israel killed Ali Shamkhani, one of the top Iranian officials responsible for nuclear negotiations with the US. A top aide to Iran’s supreme leader, Shamkhani was not officially part of the Iranian delegation in the current round of US talks, but he played a pivotal role in overseeing nuclear policy.

Iran haspulled outof the latest round of talks scheduled for this weekend. Netanyahu might have destroyed Trump’s chance at making a deal with Iran – and the prime minister has increased the likelihood of yet another disastrous war.

Mohamad Bazzi is director of the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, and a journalism professor at New York University

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian