The president of the United States, Donald Trump, has been notably ambiguous in his comments regarding the conflict between Israel and Iran.

His positions oscillate between unconditional support for Israeli attacks and a strategic distance from them.

This ambiguity, coupled with his early departure from the G7 summit in Canada, has heightened the sense of uncertainty as attacks escalate.

Although the White House suggested that Trump’s return was related to events in the Middle East, Trump later stated on his Truth Social platform that his departure had “nothing to do with a ceasefire.”

"Iran should have signed the “deal” I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!" –President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/oniUSgsMWA

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 16, 2025

Option 1: Escalation

Trump faces mounting pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to escalate U.S. involvement, including potentially providing military support for more aggressive strikes against Iran.,

Netanyahu and Trump share the ultimate goal: preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Trump’s favoured approach, however, has always been negotiation—a hallmark of his self-styled image as a deal-maker.

Yet, his rhetoric has fluctuated, at times threatening more forceful action, at others hinting at diplomatic solutions.

Behind the scenes, Israel is believed to be urging the U.S. to intervene more directly, arguing that American bunker-busting bombs could neutralise Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordow.

Meanwhile, the more hawkish Republicans in Congress are pushing for a tougher stance and, ultimately, regime change in Iran.

Option 2: A Middle Ground

Escalation carries significant risks, potentially affecting Trump’s legacy. U.S. destroyers and ground missile batteries are already assisting Israel in defending against Iranian retaliation.

Trump’s National Security Council advisors are likely to caution him against actions that could intensify Israeli attacks on Iran, especially since some Iranian missiles are breaching Israeli-U.S. defenses with lethal consequences.

Netanyahu now argues that attacking Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, would end the conflict rather than intensify it.

However, Trump has made it clear that he opposes such measures for now, indicating his hesitation to proceed with further escalation.

U.S. naval destroyers and missile defence batteries are already supporting Israel’s defence against Iranian retaliation. Some Iranian missiles have managed to penetrate these defences, resulting in deadly consequences[

Netanyahu contends that targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would end the conflict rather than exacerbate it. Trump, however, has publicly opposed such a move for now, underscoring his cautious approach.

Option 3: The Isolationist Argument

Domestic political realities weigh heavily on Trump.

While most congressional Republicans remain staunchly supportive of Israel and its military operations, key voices within the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement are questioning the wisdom of America’s traditional, unwavering alliance with Israel.

U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a prominent Trump loyalist, recently stated on social media, “Anyone pushing for full U.S. involvement in the war between Israel and Iran is not a MAGA supporter.”

This growing sentiment is a significant vulnerability for Trump, increasing the pressure on him to distance the U.S. from Israel’s offensive.

There are signs—albeit mostly in public statements—that Trump is responding to this pressure. Over the weekend, he joined Russian President Vladimir Putin in calling for an end to the war.

Trump also emphasised, “the U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran,” and suggested that both sides should seek agreement.

Should the conflict escalate further, the risk of American casualties could strengthen the isolationist argument, compelling Trump to reconsider his support for Israel’s offensive.

Navigating a Dangerous Crossroads

As the Israel-Iran conflict enters its fifth day, Trump is confronted with a set of difficult choices. Escalation could satisfy key allies and domestic hardliners but risks wider war.

A cautious approach maintains stability but fails to resolve the underlying crises.

Reversing course to align with isolationist voices could mark a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy.

The coming days will be crucial, as each option presents its own risks and opportunities.

The world waits to see how Trump will wield his influence and whether diplomacy, deterrence, or further escalation will define the next chapter in this volatile region.

IN THIS ARTICLE