Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump is attempting a high-risk manoeuvre in bombing Iran and then quickly seeking to de-escalate tensions, analysts told Al Jazeera.

But it remains to be seen whether Washington can navigate a clean exit from the deadly imbroglio, which has the potential to erupt into a large-scale regional confrontation.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Even if Trump avoids a wider war, analysts say troubling questions remain over how worthwhile the US military intervention was.

Early on Sunday, the US joined Israel in its military campaign against Iran, sending B-2 stealth aircraft to drop bombs on three of the country’s nuclear sites.

Trump has framed the military action as part of Washington’s long-term goal of preventing Tehran from building a nuclear weapon. But the bombing provoked a retaliatory strike, with Iran launching missiles at the US’s Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on Monday.

Since then, Trump has announced a ceasefire between all parties and claimed he was able to “stop the war”. He credited the bombing with bringing “everyone together”.

But media outlets have questioned whether Trump was successful in destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, as he has claimed. And Trump has denounced both Iran and Israel for early violations of the ceasefire.

“As soon as we made the deal, [Israel] came out and dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before,” Trump told reporters in an unvarnished moment on the White House lawn on Tuesday.

“We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.”

Advertisement

Behind the rhetoric

Despite the rocky first hours after the ceasefire announcement, Israeli and Iranian leaders appear to have fallen in line with Trump’s messaging about peace.

Following a call from the US president, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said that his country would refrain from further attacks. Israel had “achieved all of the war’s goals”, his office said.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, meanwhile, hailed his country’s “heroic resistance”. He said Iran would respect the truce and seek to protect its interests through diplomacy.

But experts warn that the talk of peace and diplomacy might conceal greater challenges ahead.

Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a think tank, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s harsh words for the latest attack reveal his increasingly public frustrations with Israel, a longtime US ally.

They might also indicate that extracting the US from Israel’s war with Iran might be more difficult than it seems.

“I think it’s crucial to understand Israel does not want an end to the fighting, and I think Trump is starting to recognise how deeply America and Israel’s interests in all of this diverge,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

Israeli officials have repeatedly signalled that their military operations against Iran are aimed at prompting wider regime change, a goal Trump appeared to endorse last week but has since disavowed.

On Tuesday, the Israeli military’s chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, issued a statement to the media confirming that Israel had “concluded a significant chapter, but the campaign against Iran is not over”.

That viewpoint may diverge from Trump’s, according to Parsi. Nevertheless, Parsi believes Trump has shown more willingness to tell Israel “no” than many of his presidential predecessors.

“But Trump has not been able to sustain that ‘no’ in an effective way,” Parsi added, pointing to the US president’s interventions in Israel’s war on Gaza.

“He pressured the Israelis into the ceasefire in Gaza, but then he relented and let Netanyahu get out of the ceasefire and never go to phase two of that agreement. If he wants to deal with Iran, he’s going to have to make sure he does not repeat that mistake.”

Still, Parsi noted that Trump has shown “a remarkable nimbleness” in his ability to commit – then withdraw – US military forces from foreign conflicts. Earlier this year, for instance, Trump entered into 45 days of air strikes against the Yemen-based Houthi armed group, but by May, he had unveiled a ceasefire.

Advertisement

Risk of a ‘quagmire’

For its part, Iran has been seen as eager to find an off-ramp to exit the conflict. Several analysts told Al Jazeera that Tehran would likely take pains to avoid any actions that could draw the US back into the fight.

The US and Iran had been in talks to scale back Tehran’s nuclear programme. But Israel’s initial surprise attack on June 13 had derailed the negotiations.

Negar Mortazavi, a non-resident fellow at the nonprofit Center for International Policy, said that Iran still remains open to returning to the negotiating table.

The country has long denied seeking a nuclear weapon and has instead framed its efforts as aimed at developing civilian energy infrastructure.

“Iran wants to have a civilian nuclear programme,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “And I think, if Trump accepts that, then there’s a very strong path and possibility for a deal.”

Trump, however, has been vague about what he may accept. He described the US attack on Sunday as the destruction of “all Nuclear facilities & capability” in Iran, in a series of statements that did not appear to distinguish between nuclear enrichment for civilian energy purposes or for weapons.

His statements were also at odds with a classified report leaked to US media, indicating that Iran’s nuclear programme was damaged but not obliterated – and could be rebuilt in a matter of months.

“IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES,” Trump wrote in one of the messages on Tuesday.

Still, Mortazavi believes Iran will likely have no choice but to return to negotiations, even if Trump again takes a maximalist position and opposes all uranium enrichment.

“They might be able to meet somewhere half way,” Mortazavi said of the US and Iran. She added that one possible compromise would be to have a “consortium” of regional countries that would monitor a civilian nuclear programme.

“The alternative, which is military conflict and war, is just going to be devastating for a lot more civilians”, she explained, “and could potentially turn into a quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan”.

Sina Azodi, an assistant professor of Middle East politics at George Washington University, pointed out that Trump’s ceasefire announcement on Monday could hold clues about his approach to any renewed negotiations.

Trump started his statement by writing, “CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE!” Then, he ended the missive with, “God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!”

Azodi said that the message – which appeared to put Iran in the same standing as Israel – was unprecedented from a US president since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. He noted that Trump appeared to be setting a “conciliatory” tone.

That sentiment was also reflected on the economic front. On Tuesday, Trump said that China could continue to buy oil from Iran, despite US sanctions that would otherwise limit such trade.

That, too, was interpreted by many analysts as a goodwill offering to officials in Tehran, as Trump seeks a resolution to the conflict.

Advertisement

“Trump wants to be the one who used military force, showed strength, and then quickly brought an end to the conflict,” Azodi told Al Jazeera.

“He certainly does not want a broader conflict in the region, because then there’s a possibility that he would have to resort to more military intervention.”

Any further military involvement, analysts say, could inflame tensions within Trump’s base, as many of his “America First” followers oppose overseas military action.

Some have speculated that Trump’s strike-and-exit approach allowed him to split the difference, satisfying the war hawks in the Republican Party while mollifying those who disagree with foreign intervention.

“But it’s impossible to know what comes next, given his style,” Azodi said. “One day, he’s on a good side. One day, he’s belligerent and angry.”

Long-term success?

Whether Trump will continue his calls for peace after Sunday’s attack remains unclear.

The US president has been on the defensive, as journalists continue to question the effectiveness of the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities like Fordow.

“That place is under rock. That place is demolished,” Trump told journalists on Tuesday.

He called on news outlets to apologise for casting doubt on the success of the mission. “It’s all fake news,” he said. “Those pilots hit their targets. Those targets were obliterated.”

Azodi noted that the US strikes appear to be less successful than the Trump administration has claimed. Evidence has surfaced that Iran relocated much of its uranium stockpile in the lead-up to the attack.

What is clear, Azodi said, is that the US violated international law in striking a facility under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

That could lead Iran to make good on its threat to withdraw from the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), freeing it from international obligations that would limit any weapons development.

“In the short term, yes, Trump can come and brag about [the US strikes] on Truth Social, saying that he ‘obliterated’ the Iranian nuclear programme,” Azodi said.

“But in the long term, you can’t bomb the knowledge. Iran’s fissile material appears to have survived. And now Iranians have a lot of motive for withdrawing from the NPT.”

That, he warned, would mean that “it would be impossible to monitor their nuclear programme”.