From Resistance to Support Trump’s Shift on Israel’s Iran Strikes

In June 2025, President Donald Trump made a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy by endorsing Israel’s military strikes on Iran—a move that marked a dramatic departure from his earlier resistance to such actions. This article explores the factors that led to Trump's change of stance, the implications of his decision, and the broader impact on U.S.-Iran relations and regional stability.  

The Initial Resistance During his first term, President Trump adopted a policy of "maximum pressure" against Iran, which included withdrawing from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstating stringent sanctions. Despite these aggressive measures, Trump consistently expressed a preference for diplomacy over military intervention. In April 2025, he stated, "I would like a deal done with Iran on non-nuclear. I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it" . This sentiment was echoed in his interactions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he reportedly urged to refrain from actions that could disrupt nuclear negotiations .  

Escalating Tensions and Shifting Priorities By mid-2025, the diplomatic landscape had changed. Efforts to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with Iran had stalled, with Tehran rejecting key U.S. proposals. As the two-month deadline for a deal expired without progress, President Trump grew increasingly skeptical about the prospects of diplomacy. Concurrently, Israeli intelligence assessments indicated that Iran's nuclear program was advancing rapidly, raising concerns about the potential for a nuclear-armed Iran . Prime Minister Netanyahu, viewing Iran's nuclear ambitions as an existential threat to Israel, pressed for decisive military action. He argued that only a direct strike could halt Iran's progress . With diplomatic avenues exhausted and intelligence reports confirming Iran's advancements, President Trump faced mounting pressure to reconsider his position.  

The Decision to Support Israeli Strikes On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a large-scale military offensive against Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, missile sites, and senior military leaders. The operation resulted in significant casualties and infrastructure damage. In response, President Trump praised the Israeli strikes as "excellent" and "very successful," warning Iran that it must "make a deal now" or face "even more destructive and deadly military action" . While the U.S. did not directly participate in the strikes, President Trump's endorsement signaled a tacit approval of Israel's actions. He emphasized that the attacks were intended to serve as leverage to compel Iran back to the negotiating table .  

Implications and Repercussions The U.S. endorsement of Israel's strikes had immediate and far-reaching consequences. Iran suspended its participation in scheduled nuclear negotiations with the U.S., declaring talks halted "until further notice" . The military action also led to increased regional instability, with Iran retaliating through missile attacks on Israeli cities and threatening to disrupt oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz . Critics argue that the escalation risks drawing the U.S. deeper into a conflict it had sought to avoid. The lack of a clear post-strike strategy raises concerns about the potential for prolonged hostilities and further destabilization of the Middle East .   President Trump's shift from diplomatic engagement to endorsing military action against Iran reflects the complexities and challenges of Middle Eastern geopolitics. The decision underscores the delicate balance between pursuing diplomatic solutions and responding to perceived threats. As the situation continues to evolve, the international community watches closely, hoping for a resolution that ensures regional stability and prevents further escalation.  

Recent Developments U.S. Military Support Following the Israeli strikes, the U.S. provided additional military assistance to Israel, including advanced munitions and intelligence support . Regional Reactions Gulf states, while traditionally aligned with U.S. policies, have expressed concerns about the potential for broader conflict and its impact on regional security . Diplomatic Efforts Efforts to revive nuclear negotiations remain stalled, with both sides entrenched in their positions, complicating prospects for a peaceful resolution.