It is difficult to discern exactly what the “big stuff” is that prompted President Trump to leave the G7 summit and return to Washington a day early. Mr Trump wouldn’t say what, precisely, but he did advise the 9 million residents of Tehran to “immediately evacuate” their homes, causing mass panic.
Any lingering hopes that the president was going back to the White House to work full time on a ceasefire were extinguished when Mr Trump declared that suggestions to that effect made by the president of France were mistaken: “I’m not looking for a ceasefire, we’re looking at better than a ceasefire.” What the president does want, in his words, is “an end, a real end, not a ceasefire,” and a “complete give-up” by Iran.
At the same time, though, the president told the world that he had not contacted the Iranians to engage in peace talks in any “way, shape, or form” because they “should have taken the deal that was on the table”.
Given that many American diplomats have left the region – and the USS Nimitz and its carrier strike group are transferring from the Pacific – it seems plain that the US government is at least contemplating how force (or the threat of it) might have to become necessary to pursue American strategic objectives.
President Trump has long been perfectly clear about what one of those prime objectives is: Iran “just can’t have a nuclear weapon”. On that point, at least, he has the backing of his allies, endorsed in the G7 communique, which added that Iran is a “source of terror”. As is his style, weeks ago he tried a bold – if unlikely – diplomatic initiative to strike a deal, with direct talks in Rome between American and Iranian officials.
These were stalling even before Israel started its bombardment of Iran’s labs, uranium enrichment facilities and other targets – and the US-Iran talks have since broken down. Yet even now, there is speculation that – pressured by Israel’s actions and backed with a major US naval taskforce heading towards the Persian Gulf – Mr Trump may try to use this opportunity to achieve a breakthrough deal.
Asked by reporters if he might dispatch his vice-president, JD Vance, and roaming negotiator Steve Witkoff to Iran for this purpose, Mr Trump did not rule it out. “Peace through strength” is a slogan that the president frequently uses, but thus far in his presidency, it has seldom worked out in practice. This time, the world must hope, will be different.
If diplomacy fails? Mr Trump could simply allow Israel to continue its efforts to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, such as they are, and to so destabilise the theocratic regime that it is overthrown by the Iranian people. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has made no secret of his wish for “regime change”, addressing the “Persian” people directly and having his photograph taken with the exiled son of the last shah of Iran, who was toppled by the ayatollahs in the revolution of 1979.
Subcontracting the task of disarming Iran and persuading the people of Iran to replace their government with a more palatable, peace-loving alternative, all without any direct US involvement, must have some attractions for American foreign policy (though Mr Trump reportedly vetoed an assassination attempt on the supreme leader of Iran).
That carries significant risks, however, which will be apparent to the defence, security and state department officials briefing Mr Trump. For some weeks, Israel has used the George W Bush playbook as applied in the last Gulf war to justify its attacks in Iran – a pre-emptive military strike to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and, as the Americans did with Saddam Hussein, offering regime change as an alternative to destruction and defeat. A similar ultimatum is now being issued by Mr Trump, with Israeli backing – give up your nukes and you can stay in power. If not…
But the world knows how that Iraqi story ended – a fractured country that fell into civil war and the rule of Isis, an even more murderous and dangerous entity than the Baathists. The collapse of Iran into chaos and civil war would be a far greater disaster for the world than anything that has happened in Iraq, Libya, Syria or Afghanistan in terms of the consequences for turning a stable (if malign) state into a failed one. Iran is in another league of military and political importance.
If there was fighting for control of Iran – and the ayatollahs cannot be expected to meekly slink away to their holy places – then that would soon spread to Yemen, and restart the horrific proxy war there with Saudi Arabia. Russia remains Iran’s friend and ally, and relies on its Shahed drones that proved so effective in Ukraine. What would Vladimir Putin do to protect his interests?
If America intervenes, or acquiesces in Israel’s escalating campaign, the regional conflagration so long feared between Israel and Iran would not remain a private dispute between the two regional superpowers of Israel and Iran, not least because Tehran’s client terrorists in Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels and, above all, Hamas will continue to be involved.
The more nations and groups become involved, the more unpredictable events will become, and the harder it will be for America to control them. Instead of ending far-away wars, this “America First” is being dragged into more of them. That’s very much “big stuff” – and big risks.
