Analysis and updates

The messages coming out of the Trump administration in the first hours after Israel launched its attack against Iran on Thursday evening were mixed. An initial statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio was unequivocal: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran.” Israel was acting alone.

A statement from President Donald Trump early the next day, though, seemed to align more with Israel’s attack—and used the threat of worse violence to press the Iranian government to make a deal on its nuclear program, for which further talks, now canceled, had been planned for this past weekend.

The messages coming out of the Trump administration in the first hours after Israel launched its attack against Iran on Thursday evening were mixed. An initial statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio was unequivocal: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran.” Israel was acting alone.

A statement from President Donald Trump early the next day, though, seemed to align more with Israel’s attack—and used the threat of worse violence to press the Iranian government to make a deal on its nuclear program, for which further talks, now canceled, had been planned for this past weekend.

Whether Trump greenlit or yellow-lit Israel’s war on Iran, he’s backing it now, both rhetorically and through the provision of defensive support. In doing so he’s breaking an important campaign promise to be a pro-peace president. This opens space for a potential challenger to take up that mantle.

In the last few weeks before November’s presidential election, the Trump campaign noticeably leaned into an anti-war message, with his running mate, then-Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, hailing him as a “

© Foreign Policy