As Israel and Iran exchange deadly strikes, President Trump’s mixed signals on diplomacy and military action spark debate over US involvement. Did he greenlight Israel’s assault, and is America gearing up for conflict?
June 18, 2025, 3:14 PM IST
Table of Contents
A World on Edge: Trump’s Role in the Israel-Iran Conflict
US Preparing for War
The Middle East is ablaze. Since June 13, 2025, Israel has pounded Iran with over 100 airstrikes, targeting nuclear facilities like Natanz, oil depots, and military sites, killing at least 224 Iranians, mostly civilians. Iran has retaliated with nearly 400 ballistic missiles and drones, striking Israeli cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa, leaving 24 dead. Amid this chaos, President Donald Trump’s cryptic messages—calling for diplomacy one moment and demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender” the next—have left the world wondering: Did he approve Israel’s attack, and is the US preparing to join the war?
As a father, small business owner, and someone who’s seen gas prices creep up with every headline, I’m digging into this to understand what’s at stake for families, markets, and global stability. Let’s break down Trump’s stance, the evidence of US involvement, and whether America is on the brink of conflict, with a nod to how this ties into broader events like the G7 summit and India’s challenges.
Trump’s Stance: Diplomacy or a “Wink” to Israel?
A Diplomatic Push—Until It Wasn’t
Trump has publicly championed a nuclear deal with Iran, aiming to curb its uranium enrichment, which hit 60% purity at Natanz and Fordow, close to the 90% needed for a bomb. As recently as June 12, he posted on Truth Social, “We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution!” His envoy, Steve Witkoff, was set to meet Iranian negotiators in Oman on June 15, signaling hope for a breakthrough. In May, Trump even waved off an Israeli plan to strike Iran, prioritizing talks, a move praised by analysts like Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association. “Trump has been clear in opposing military force while diplomacy was playing out,” she told Al Jazeera.
But diplomacy hit a wall. Iran’s refusal to halt enrichment, coupled with a June 12 IAEA rebuke for non-compliance, frustrated Trump. By June 13, hours before Israel’s strikes began, he posted that Iran’s 60-day deadline to agree had expired, hinting at consequences. This shift aligns with Israel’s long-standing push for military action, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who fears a diplomatic deal would legitimize Iran’s nuclear program.
Did Trump Approve the Strikes?
Trump denies direct US involvement. On June 15, he posted, “The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight.” White House statements, like one from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, echo this, emphasizing that Israel acted unilaterally for “self-defense.” Yet, analysts are split on whether Trump gave a tacit nod.
- Skeptics of Approval: Davenport and Richard Nephew, a former National Security Council director, argue Trump’s consistent push for a deal troubled Israel, which feared a diplomatic success would undermine its goal of destroying Iran’s nuclear capacity. They suggest Israel acted to sabotage talks, catching Trump off-guard. Nephew told Al Jazeera, “It’s that consistency [toward diplomacy] that’s been the problem for Israel.”
- Evidence of a “Wink”: Ali Ansari, an Iranian history professor, told Al Jazeera the US was likely aware of Israel’s plans, even if the timing surprised them. Reports indicate Trump knew by June 8, after a briefing from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, that Israel was set to strike. By June 12, he told reporters an attack “could very well happen,” suggesting resignation or acceptance. A June 17 Reuters interview revealed Trump called the strikes “excellent,” hinting at post-facto approval.
The truth likely lies in a gray zone. Trump, frustrated by Iran’s stalling, may have signaled he wouldn’t block Israel, especially after rejecting an earlier Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His June 16 G7 summit exit, citing a “much bigger” issue than a ceasefire, and posts like “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” suggest he’s leaning into coercion, using Israel’s strikes to pressure Iran.
Is the US Preparing for War?
Military Moves: Defense or Escalation?
The US has bolstered its Middle East presence, raising fears of deeper involvement. Since June 13, the Pentagon has:
- Deployed a Navy destroyer and 30 midair-refueling planes to support Israel’s defense against Iranian missiles.
- Ordered the USS Nimitz carrier strike group and additional warplanes to the region by June 17.
- Sent forces to Europe and the Middle East, described by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as “defensive” to protect US personnel.
These moves helped intercept Iranian missiles, saving Israeli lives, but Trump insists they’re not offensive. On June 17, he claimed the US has “complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” crediting American tech, though it’s unclear if he meant US or Israeli operations. A US official told Axios the ability to bomb Fordow—Iran’s underground nuclear site, unscathed by Israel’s strikes—is a “bargaining chip” for talks, hinting at military leverage.
The Fordow Factor
Israel’s strikes crippled Natanz’s above-ground facilities, with the IAEA reporting damage to power systems that may have harmed underground centrifuges. But Fordow, buried under a mountain, remains intact. Destroying it requires the US’s 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), carried by B-2 bombers—capabilities Israel lacks. Davenport noted to Al Jazeera that repeated MOP strikes could devastate Fordow, but the US hasn’t transferred this bomb to Israel.
Trump’s June 17 posts, claiming Iran’s nuclear program could be “wiped out” without US intervention, suggest he’s holding the MOP as a threat. Analysts like Ansari believe this could force Iran to negotiate, as conceding to the US is less humiliating than to Israel. But Trump’s rhetoric—“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”—and meetings with his national security team on June 17 fuel speculation he’s weighing strikes on Fordow if talks collapse.
Congressional Pushback
Fearing escalation, Senator Tim Kaine introduced a war powers resolution on June 16, requiring Congressional approval for any offensive action against Iran, except in self-defense. Supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, it faces slim chances in the GOP-led Congress, where hawks like Lindsey Graham urge Trump to “go all in” and destroy Iran’s nuclear program with US bombs or joint strikes. Kaine told The Guardian, “It’s not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless absolutely necessary.” A May 2025 University of Maryland poll showed only 14% of Americans back military action against Iran’s nuclear sites, reflecting public wariness.
Diplomacy vs. Force: Trump’s Dilemma
A Failed Diplomatic Legacy
Trump’s 2018 exit from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which limited Iran’s enrichment to 3.67%, set the stage for today’s crisis. Iran’s subsequent jumps to 20% in 2021 and 60% by 2023, with traces of 83.7% at Fordow, followed. Nephew told Al Jazeera that torching the JCPOA, at Israel’s urging, “was a direct contribution to where we are today,” pushing Iran toward a “proliferation path” for self-defense. Trump’s lack of an alternative, echoed by Biden’s inaction, left diplomacy stalled until 2025.
Now, Trump’s “maximum pressure” blends diplomacy with threats. His June 17 claim that Iran is “at the negotiating table” contrasts with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s insistence that talks can’t resume amid Israeli attacks. Oman and Qatar’s mediation efforts, reported by The Washington Post, have stalled, with Iran demanding a ceasefire first.
Could Trump Join the War?
Trump’s campaign promises to avoid Middle East wars clash with his current posture. Analysts see two scenarios:
- Coercive Diplomacy: Trump may use the MOP threat and Israel’s momentum to force Iran into a deal, halting enrichment and exporting its 60% uranium stockpile. His June 17 Axios-reported push for Witkoff to meet Araghchi suggests this path, though Iran’s defiance—firing hypersonic missiles on June 17—complicates it.
- Military Escalation: If talks fail, Trump’s desire to back “winners,” as Nephew noted, could pull him into strikes on Fordow. Israel’s success, killing Iranian commanders like Ali Shadmani, and control of Iran’s airspace tempt Trump to join for “glory,” per Ansari. But this risks a wider war, with Iran’s missiles threatening US bases or Hormuz oil flows, spiking Brent crude to $90-$120.
Broader Context: G7, India, and Global Stakes
The Israel-Iran conflict overshadowed the G7 summit in Canada, where Trump’s June 16 exit disrupted trade talks. The G7’s call for Middle East “de-escalation” lacked teeth, reflecting Trump’s sway. India, a G7 guest, faces oil price hikes (Brent at $76.45) straining its $700 billion economy, mirroring xAI’s energy cost risks. India’s Axiom-4 mission delays and Air India crash probe highlight its resilience amid crises, akin to xAI’s fundraising grit.
Trump’s feud with Musk, post-G7, adds domestic tension, but xAI’s $9.3 billion raise shows tech’s defiance. If Trump joins the war, oil shocks could hit xAI’s data centers and India’s AI ambitions, linking these stories in a web of global uncertainty.
What’s Next?
Best- and Worst-Case Scenarios
- Best Case: Trump leverages Israel’s strikes and the MOP threat to secure a deal by July, with Iran diluting its uranium stockpile. Oil stabilizes at $80, sparing India and xAI economic pain, and the US avoids war.
- Worst Case: Talks collapse, and Trump orders Fordow strikes, escalating into a regional war. Iran blocks Hormuz, oil hits $120, and India’s economy falters, dragging xAI’s costs up. Congress fails to curb Trump, alienating voters.
My Take
As someone juggling bills and kids’ futures, I’m wary of Trump’s swagger. His diplomatic push was genuine, but dismissing his own intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard’s March 2025 claim that Iran isn’t building a bomb smells like posturing. Israel likely acted to torpedo talks, and Trump’s “wink” let it happen, hoping to scare Iran into submission. The US isn’t prepping for all-out war—yet—but those warplanes and carriers signal readiness if Iran strikes US assets. Kaine’s resolution is a long shot, but it’s a reminder: Congress, not one man, should decide war. For now, I’m hoping Trump’s dealmaking instinct wins out, because a war’s ripple effects—gas at $5 a gallon, markets tanking—hit home hard.
