Trump is just big talk when it comes to Iran, he's not actually coming on board
Trump doesn't want war. He's trying to scare the Iranians back to the negotiating table, and force them to accept a deal of his choosing.
Twitter
As the Israel-Iran conflict enters its sixth day, President Donald Trump’s actions and rhetoric have taken center stage, blending military saber-rattling with diplomatic overtures in a calculated effort to force Iran back to the negotiating table. With B-2 stealth bombers and refueling aircraft repositioned in the Middle East, cryptic Truth Social posts, and a shared message from U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee invoking divine guidance, Trump’s strategy appears to be a high-wire act aimed at pressuring Tehran into concessions on its nuclear program while avoiding direct U.S. entanglement in a regional war.
Military Moves and Rhetorical Escalation
The United States has significantly bolstered its military presence in the Middle East in recent days. Approximately three dozen refueling aircraft have been deployed to Europe and the region, capable of supporting Israeli fighter jets or extending the range of U.S. bombers like the B-2 Spirit, which can carry the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) designed to destroy deeply buried targets such as Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility.
Reports indicate that B-2s, previously stationed at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, could be redeployed closer to Iran, signaling readiness for potential strikes. These movements, described by U.S. officials as providing “options” for Trump and U.S. Central Command, show a shift from a purely defensive posture to one that could facilitate offensive operations alongside Israel.
Trump’s public statements have amplified this military posturing. On Truth Social, he posted, “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” echoing Israel’s claim of air superiority over Tehran.
He then followed with a provocative message directed at Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stating, “He is an easy target, but is safe there… Our patience is wearing thin,” and capped it with a demand for “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”
In off-the-cuff remarks, Trump wished Khamenei “good luck” in response to the leader’s defiance, a flippant tone that belies the gravity of the situation. These statements, coupled with his sharing of a text from Ambassador Huckabee urging him to heed “the voice of heaven” in deciding U.S. policy, have fueled speculation that Trump is preparing to join Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure.
Yet, beneath this hawkish veneer lies a pattern of calculated ambiguity. Trump’s rhetoric oscillates between threats of overwhelming force and calls for diplomacy. On June 16, he urged Iran and Israel to “talk immediately” to de-escalate, claiming Tehran was “not winning this war.”
The next day, he clarified he sought “a real end” to the conflict, not merely a ceasefire, implying a resolution that eliminates Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This duality suggests Trump is employing a “madman theory” of coercion, projecting unpredictability to unsettle Iran while keeping negotiations alive.
The Diplomatic Objective
At the heart of Trump’s strategy is the goal of forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program. Since taking office, Trump has pursued a new nuclear deal, dispatching special envoy Steve Witkoff to lead five rounds of talks in Oman, with a sixth scheduled for June 15 but derailed by Israel’s strikes. Trump’s frustration with Iran’s slow progress in these negotiations is palpable. He told reporters, “They should have done the deal… I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate,” signaling impatience with Tehran’s counteroffers and perceived intransigence.
Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, which began on June 13 with strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites, has complicated but not entirely derailed these diplomatic efforts. Trump initially distanced the U.S. from Israel’s “unilateral action,” but as the operation’s success became evident, he claimed foreknowledge and praised it as “very successful.”
This shift reflects a pragmatic adaptation: Trump appears to view Israel’s military pressure as a lever to weaken Iran’s bargaining position. U.S. officials assess that Iran, reeling from the loss of key commanders and damage to centrifuge facilities, may be more amenable to concessions. Tehran has signaled willingness to resume talks through intermediaries in Qatar and Oman, though it insists on halting Israeli attacks first.
Trump’s military deployments and fiery rhetoric serve to amplify this pressure. By positioning B-2s and refueling tankers, he signals to Iran that the U.S. could escalate its involvement, potentially targeting Fordo, which Israel lacks the capability to destroy alone. His Truth Social post sharing Huckabee’s message, which likens Trump’s role to President Truman’s in 1945, subtly invokes the specter of overwhelming force, possibly even nuclear, though such an option remains highly unlikely given U.S. intelligence assessments that Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. These moves aim to convince Iran that the costs of resisting a deal outweigh the benefits of holding out.
Risks and Domestic Pressures
Trump’s strategy, while bold, carries significant risks. First, his escalatory rhetoric and military redeployments could miscalculate Iran’s response. Tehran has warned that U.S. intervention would trigger “all-out war,” potentially involving Iranian-backed militias attacking U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria or Houthi strikes on Red Sea shipping. Iran’s army recently claimed to have downed an Israeli drone, indicating its air defenses remain active despite Israeli and U.S. claims of air superiority. A misstep could draw the U.S. into a broader conflict, undermining Trump’s “America First” pledge to avoid foreign entanglements.
Second, Trump faces a divided domestic base. While many Republicans in Congress staunchly support Israel and advocate for military action against Iran, a vocal segment of his MAGA movement, including figures like Tucker Carlson, questions U.S. involvement. Carlson has criticized Israel’s actions as a ploy to drag America into war, arguing they contradict Trump’s promise to prioritize U.S. interests. This tension places Trump in a delicate position: he must appease his hawkish allies while reassuring his isolationist supporters.
Third, Trump’s reliance on Israel’s military campaign risks ceding control to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has openly urged U.S. intervention to destroy Fordo. Israeli officials have claimed Trump gave a “green light” for the strikes, though U.S. sources dispute this, suggesting Israel acted independently to present a fait accompli. Netanyahu’s agenda (potentially regime change in Iran) may not align with Trump’s narrower focus on a nuclear deal, creating friction between the allies.
The next 24 to 48 hours will be critical in determining whether his pressure campaign brings Iran to the table or tips the Middle East into a wider conflict. For now, Trump’s tightrope walk continues, with the world watching to see if his blend of brinkmanship and deal-making can deliver the “real end” he seeks.