Donald Trump’s Ambiguous Stance on Israel-Iran Conflict Raises Questions About US Role and West Asia Strategy

Washington, D.C: As the Israel-Iran conflict enters its sixth day, US President Donald Trump’s recent remark, “I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,” has sparked intense speculation about his administration’s intentions in the escalating Middle East crisis.

The statement, made in response to questions about potential US military involvement in Israel’s strikes on Iran, underscores a pattern of ambiguity that has left allies, adversaries, and domestic observers questioning Trump’s priorities — whether driven by opportunism, a desire for a diplomatic legacy, or a commitment to his “America First” principles.

A deal over principles?

Donald Trump’s push for a nuclear deal with Iran, despite Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, suggests a preference for a high-profile diplomatic win over unwavering support for Israel.

On June 15, Trump posted on Truth Social, urging Iran to “come to the table to make a deal before it’s too late,” noting that the “hardliners” he previously negotiated with are now dead.

This rhetoric, coupled with reports of backchannel communications with Tehran, raises the question: Has Trump maintained an open line to Iran to prematurely end the conflict? Such a move could undermine Israel’s objective of decisively neutralising Iran’s nuclear capabilities, particularly the heavily fortified Fordo enrichment facility, which remains a significant challenge for Israeli forces.

Israeli officials, including Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, have emphasised the need to destroy Fordo, a site buried 80 meters under rock and soil, protected by Iranian and Russian air defences. Israel lacks the US-made GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb capable of penetrating such fortifications.

The question looms: Will Trump authorise the transfer of this weapon to Israel to ensure the destruction of Fordo and Natanz, Iran’s primary nuclear sites, or will he prioritise negotiations to secure a deal with his signature?

Threats of regime change and assassination

Donald Trump’s rhetoric has also taken a provocative turn, with posts on Truth Social on June 17 threatening Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Claiming the US knows Khamenei’s location in an underground bunker in Tehran’s Lavizan neighborhood, Trump wrote, “He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.”

The post, coupled with a demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” has led to accusations from Iran’s UN mission of “cowardly” threats, raising concerns about whether Trump is openly advocating for regime change by targeting Iran’s top leader.

This stance appears to contradict his campaign promises to avoid costly Middle East entanglements, a cornerstone of his “America First” platform.

Defensive posturing or cosmetic moves?

The Pentagon’s deployment of warplanes and an aircraft carrier to the Middle East has been described as defensive, aimed at protecting the 40,000 US troops stationed in the region.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reiterated this position, stating, “We are postured defensively in the region to be strong, in pursuit of a peace deal.”

However, analysts question whether these moves are merely cosmetic, designed to project strength without committing to active support for Israel’s campaign to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.

The reluctance to engage offensively suggests Trump may be balancing domestic pressures from his MAGA base, which opposes foreign interventions, with calls from Republican hawks like Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, who advocate for regime change in Tehran.

A vision for a “Great Middle East”?

Trump’s June 13 Truth Social post, proclaiming his intent to “MAKE THE MIDDLE EAST GREAT AGAIN,” promised a resolution to regional conflicts through diplomacy.

Yet, 620 days into the Israel-Hamas war and 1,210 days into the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with the Israel-Iran war now claiming lives 224 in Iran and 24 in Israel, the vision of a peaceful Middle East remains elusive.

Trump’s assertion that “Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal” contrasts with his rejection of a ceasefire in favour of a “real end” to the conflict, which he has described as “better than a ceasefire.”

Analysts interpret this as a push for Iran’s capitulation, potentially through escalated military pressure rather than a negotiated settlement.

Defying MAGA or staying the course?

Donald Trump's reluctance to commit US troops to the Middle East aligns with his campaign pledge to avoid sending “our brave soldiers to fight.”

However, his response to criticism from former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a vocal isolationist, suggests a shift.

Trump posted, “AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,” dismissing Carlson as “kooky.”

This raises the question: Will Donald Trump defy his MAGA base by deploying ground troops to support Israel, or will he adhere to domestic electoral pressures and limit US involvement to defensive measures and diplomatic overtures?

A peacemaker’s legacy in question

In his January 21, 2025, inaugural address, Trump declared his ambition to be a “peacemaker and unifier.” Yet, with three ongoing wars: Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine, and now Israel-Iran, his policy of US isolationism faces scrutiny.

The Israel-Hamas conflict has widened, and the Russia-Ukraine war has seen 13,134 civilian deaths, with no resolution in sight 152 days into Trump’s presidency. The addition of the Israel-Iran conflict, sparked by Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, challenges Trump’s claim to a legacy of peace.

As Donald Trump tap-dances through the Middle East’s geopolitical minefield, his stance swinging wildly from saber-rattling to deal-making to playing defence, has the world scratching its head.

Will he hand Israel the bunker-busting bombs to squash Iran’s nuclear ambitions once and for all? Or will he chase a flashy deal with Tehran, risking Israel’s long-term security for a photo-op with his signature scrawled in bold ink? And just where is this “Great Middle East” he keeps tweeting about? For now, Trump’s coy quip, “I may do it, I may not do it,” keeps everyone guessing, as the region teeters on the edge of a bigger brawl, with the White House serving up suspense instead of solutions.