Until dawn, journalists and television networks waited in vain for the US President to speak in the White House courtyard and at the microphone that the press office had set up, regarding both the long-running security council meeting in Washington and the US President's phone call with Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the same time, in a corresponding unusually long process in Israel, the country's Prime Minister and the top ministers of his Government, as well as the heads of the Army, were planning under the same "silence" the next steps regarding the crisis in the Middle East, and specifically Iran.
Through leaks, Washington noted that the country's President today is more than ever in favor of continuing the bombing of Tehran and the Iranian border, and that the scenario of American involvement in the crisis is clearly on the table.
Upon leaving the White House, top Trump administration officials initially did not articulate anything, signaling that the President himself would "cover" all the questions and answer all the questions. Trump's final choice to announce that he would not speak at all for the rest of the day on the issue clearly raised more questions than he answered...
Trump is facing an extremely difficult decision today, not only because he must make the decision to become yet another President who will put the United States into a war in the Middle East, but also because he has openly spoken out against any of his predecessors who did so for several years. Trump, since 2022, has even publicly criticized Republican Presidents who have decided to participate in military operations in the Middle East in the past, describing these moves as “disastrous.”
The American President faces a crucial choice for the future of the world – as we know it – and he seems willing to sacrifice even his campaign rhetoric regarding armed conflicts, the one he has faithfully followed since the day he was elected and the one on which he has built almost all of his foreign policy actions. Trump will have to make a 180-degree turn at home and go from “if I were President, no war would have started” to “I am starting one of the biggest wars of the 21st century”…
Whatever the decision of Donald Trump - who, among other things, himself called for the evacuation of Tehran and had no problem questioning his services' report that Iran is not close to acquiring a nuclear weapon - he completely agreed with Israel's narrative, giving a small sample of his intentions.
The task before Trump is quite complex, but there is also fresh precedent and an analytical "guide" for both what followed the previous American involvement in the region and what the political consequences were for those who made the decision. In historical times, after all, 2003 and 1990 are only a few "minutes" away from today.
The crucial "Franco-British" factor
The US task will become somewhat easier and the burden noticeably lighter if the French and British in the "bloc" that has been building in recent days say "oui" and "yes" to the American invitation. Britain, which has already strengthened its forces in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, seems easier to convince that it must once again be on the side of the US and Israel in order for the Tehran regime to be defeated.
Paris, on the other hand, seems to be extremely reluctant to agree, as in the early 2000s, when President Chirac completely distanced himself from a similar request from the US and Britain before the invasion of Iraq. Emmanuel Macron has no desire to get involved in such a war, and there is a strong possibility that he will openly do the opposite of what Trump currently wants as support.
Source: protothema.gr
