Will he, or won’t he?
That’s the question on the minds of all those watching the astonishing developments unfold in Iran. Will US President Donald Trump join Israel’s war effort and provide the offensive capabilities presumably needed to finish off Iran’s nuclear program—namely, the bunker “buster bombs” and the aircraft able to deliver them to take out the Fordow installation buried deep inside a mountain —or will he stay on the sidelines?
“Sidelines,” however, is something of a misnomer.
Even if Trump doesn’t actively involve the US military in an offensive campaign against Iran, the US is already deeply engaged in defending Israel, deploying anti-missile batteries stationed both in Israel and at sea to intercept Iranian barrages aimed at Israeli cities. American pilots are also assisting Israeli pilots in shooting down drones launched from Iran.
In addition, the US is supplying Israel with the munitions needed to sustain the war effort and the interceptors necessary to take down incoming missiles. And it beggars belief to think that Israel would have launched this campaign without a tacit green light from Washington, along with some form of assurance—defensive assistance and diplomatic cover included.
When Iran and the US resumed talks two months ago, there was considerable discussion about the extent of Israel’s involvement in shaping them. Clearly, one scenario that was discussed between Israelis and the Americans was what would happen if the Iranians refused to make the significant concessions Washington was seeking. The world is watching as that answer is playing out before its eyes: Israel would act.
And act it is.
Trump could have stepped in and told Israel not to launch an attack. He didn’t. Instead, he has been broadly supportive of Israel’s actions.
Will Trump join in Israel's efforts against Iran?
Now the question is whether he’ll go further—and join in.
Trump, being Trump, is keeping everyone guessing. One moment, he’s talking about wanting a peace deal. The next moment, he’s warning Tehran residents to evacuate the city. One day, he claims he wants negotiations, and the next, he declares he’s had enough of them.
His instinct remains not to get involved militarily unless Iran directly attacks the US—something Iranian officials threatened just before Friday’s Israeli attack but have so far avoided. Trump has made clear that if they do strike American assets, they will pay a heavy price.
Two days before Israel’s strike, Iran’s Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh issued a warning, threatening US interests in the region if Iran came under attack.
“Some officials on the other side threaten conflict if negotiations don’t come to fruition. If a conflict is imposed on us… all US bases are within our reach, and we will boldly target them in host countries,” he said.
So far, these threats—predictably—have proven hollow. The last thing Iran wants now is to bring the US directly into the war.
Nevertheless, the rhetoric underscores the stakes for Washington and helps explain Trump’s ambiguity. Many in the MAGA camp—foremost among them right-wing media personality Tucker Carlson—are strenuously opposed to US involvement, highlighting the domestic political calculations Trump must weigh.
Yet while Trump keeps the world guessing, the US is simultaneously providing Israel with critical defensive and logistical support.
As Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer put it in an interview Tuesday with US conservative talk-show host Mark Levin: “America is shoulder to shoulder with us on defense.”
“The US is helping us. President Trump is helping us,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at his press conference Monday evening. “We very much appreciate that. As far as further actions are concerned, President Trump will decide what is good for America. I respect that. We are working according to our plan to remove those [Iranian] threats—and any contribution will be welcomed.”
That remark is telling: Israel has a plan to achieve the goals of the operation—the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. That plan was carefully drawn up and likely modeled on multiple scenarios: one involving US participation, and one without it.
It’s safe to assume there are operational blueprints in place to significantly degrade Iran’s nuclear program with or without American help. Clearly, it would be easier with US assistance. But Netanyahu’s comments suggest Israel believes it can get the job done either way. There may be alternative means—besides bunker busters—for disabling the Fordow facility, or ways to meaningfully set back the overall program without having to strike every site.
Both Netanyahu and Dermer, in public remarks and interviews with American media, have gone out of their way to express gratitude for US support, without explicitly calling for deeper involvement. Which is wise. The last thing Israel needs is for it to appear as though it is dragging the US into its war.
Rather, as Dermer told Levin, Israel’s enemies are also America’s enemies—and Israel’s fight is America’s fight. But how the US chooses to fight that battle is, ultimately, up to Washington.
Trump, for his part, appears caught between two instincts. On one side are the isolationists within his base. On the other are those advocating a forceful American response. And, in typical Trump fashion, he is signaling to both sides that they have a point.
Over the past several days, Trump’s messaging has seesawed between full-throated support for Israel’s military actions, openness to a diplomatic resolution, stern warnings to Iran, calls for Tehran’s evacuation, and vague comments about whether the US will get directly involved—particularly when it comes to the use of bunker busters against Fordow.
This pattern reflects a desire to maintain negotiating leverage, while also staying true to a long-standing campaign promise: to keep America out of new Middle East wars. At the same time, he is clearly keeping military options on the table.
In response to Carlson’s sharp criticism of his support for Israel, Trump doubled down, posting on Monday: “Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!”
That was quickly followed by another post: “AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”
Another factor that should influence Trump’s decision-making is how his actions will impact America’s global standing. Friends and adversaries alike—Russia and China in the latter category, Japan, Taiwan, Europe in the former —are watching closely. How Trump responds now will influence their future assessments of America’s resolve and reliability.
So, as speculation continues over what Trump will ultimately decide—and with no one really able to predict his next move—Israel continues doing what it believes must be done inside Iran. The country has long internalized a basic truth: no one else will do the job for us. If allies assist—wonderful. If not, the job still needs to get done.