Iran Nuclear Deal and Donald Trump’s Dilemma

Looking at the impact of Israel’s surprise attack on Iran on June 13, Donald Trump’s position is certainly becoming more dilemmatic. First, Donald Trump was already in a dilemma regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, since Donald Trump’s first term was the main actor in canceling the JCPOA agreement between Iran and several major nuclear weapons countries in the world in 2017.

Trump’s decision to overthrow the nuclear agreement inherited from Barack Obama has proven to make the situation in the Middle East even more uncertain. Iran was seen to have resumed its nuclear enrichment activities, which not only made Israel increasingly anxious, but also other Arab countries in the Middle East were also in an increasingly vulnerable position.

At that time, Trump was very confident that his administration could force Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment activities with just “threats after threats” every day. However, Trump was less aware that Iran was used to living with various types of threats given not only by western countries, but even by other Middle Eastern countries.  As a result, Trump failed to subdue Tehran until 2020, when he had to hand over power to the White House to Joe Biden.

Second, the dilemma doubled after Israel decided to attack Iran on June 13, 2025. US, in this case the Donald Trump administration, did not seem to be fully on the side of “Bibi” Netanyahu. Indeed, Trump did not seem to have much of a problem with the surprise attack carried out by Israel. But on the other hand, Trump was also seen to be disappointed and not too happy with the attack, because it disrupted his plans to bring Iran to the negotiating table.

In other words, as with Donald Trump’s character and political style, along with the motto often pinned by his subordinates that Trump is “the great deal maker”, Trump’s agenda, whether he admits it or not, was disrupted by Israel’s surprise attack. Therefore, although he did not openly express his disagreement, US immediately stated that first, the Donald Trump administration was not involved in the attack at all. Second, US again appealed to Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible.  And third, no less importantly, US also reiterated that Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

From these points, two things are implied. First, US, especially Trump who is reportedly no longer very close to Netanyahu, does not want to be dragged into a bigger war in the Middle East, just because of Netanyahu’s actions who indeed intends to “dive” US into the war between Israel and Iran. The limits of this attitude are clearly visible from the statements of Donald Trump and Marco Rubio that US expects a de-escalation process to occur as soon as possible and still prefers diplomacy to war.

This notion is somewhat different from Trump’s attitude shortly after Zelensky launched an attack on Russian soil. At that time, Trump actually gave Russia the opportunity to counterattack by saying “let them fight for a while”. And it was proven that Russia retaliated immediately after that. This statement is also very understandable and could be interpreted  that Trump is indeed more “leaning” to Putin than to Zelensky. It was also because of this factor that Zelensky finally took a stance to launch a drone attack on Russian soil without much coordination with US, only with NATO and Europe.

Second, Trump wants the agreement to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment to take place within the schedule and scheme made by his administration, not driven, let alone determined by Israel’s attitude. The call to return to the negotiating table, or in Trump’s language, “I prefer agreement” and not to take a hard stance on Iran if Iran retaliates against Israel, is almost similar to Trump’s attitude to Putin after Zelensky attacked Russia with hundreds of drones. This means that Trump is not really on the same boat as Netanyahu, even though the goal is the same, namely stopping Iran’s nuclear enrichment.

And after the exchange of attacks between Iran and Israel increased, Israel looked increasingly serious about involving US in the war in the Middle East on the one hand and the Trump administration also looked increasingly serious about avoiding it. There was even news that Israel was planning a false flag air strike on an American warship in the Mediterranean Sea. The false flag was none other than the Iranian flag. So, it is assumed that it will later be interpreted by US as a “declaration of war” from Iran to US.

Historically, if the plan really exists, it is not without precedent. Israel once set one of US’s warships on fire in the same sea during the Six Days War. Its ambition was certainly none other than to drag US into the war. Although de-escalation occurred immediately after that, of course thanks to US’s pressure on Russia which was “backing” Egypt at that time. The path used was a diplomatic path combined with the threat of nuclear war with Russia. However, there was no further war, so US was not dragged into an open war.

And in my opinion, Donald Trump also understands Israel’s way of playing this time. US is trying so hard not to be dragged into the bigger waves created by Israel. Although political and moral support is still given to Israel in the UN Security Council, Donald Trump remains consistent in trying to build a global orchestration aimed at bringing Iran back to the negotiating table.

The current situation is certainly no longer the same as the situation before June 13, 2025. Trump needs more extra effort and more varied tactics, which will take much more time and cost than before.

To normalize the situation due to the cancellation of the JCPOA in 2017, the Trump administration is seen still in very difficult situation. Especially after it was proven that US in the eyes of Iran was unable to tame Israel. This is the dilemma that Donald Trump must go through, which in my opinion, will further complicate the relationship between Netanyahu and Donald Trump in the future.

However, from Israel’s perspective, the existence of Iran’s nuclear is an existential threat to Israel’s existence as a nation state. Thus, with or without Donald Trump, Israel is predicted to continue to seek ways to physically disable Iran’s nuclear reactor, not diplomatically. The same thing was recently told by Netanyahu publicly in response to Immanuel Macron, who seemed no longer willing to stand with the Netanyahu government, before Israel’s June 13 attack.

Also from a geopolitical perspective, Netanyahu certainly understands that when the western world is faced with two final choices, whether to stand with Israel or with its opponents, then the answer is almost certain that all major western powers will choose to stand with Israel. This is one of the public secrets of Netanyahu and Israel’s game so far, which has made this country dare to make dangerous choices in the Middle East so far.