Trump claimed that the war could have dragged on for years and decimated the Middle East, but now that it had ended swiftly, he congratulated both sides and praised their “courage and intelligence.”
Despite a carefully orchestrated campaign of deception, mixed messages, and operational movements aimed at concealing the timing and intent of the strike, it was evident that the temptation of launching a precise blow against Iran was too seductive for President Trump to resist.
Motivated by a desire for grandeur, legacy, and spectacular victories, Trump seized what he perceived as a rare opportunity.
Domestically, particularly among his political circle, Iran serves as a unifying adversary.
Even within elite policy circles, a rough consensus exists supporting confrontation with Tehran — aside from opposition within the “America First” faction, which remains wary of costly foreign entanglements.
However, Trump, as the central figure in that very movement, retains significant influence over its direction, especially if his gamble yields tangible gains.
This consensus was echoed through US media coverage following the strike, which largely framed the American intervention as a bold and correct move.
The effectiveness of Israel’s initial attack, which inflicted heavy losses on Iranian leadership and security infrastructure, created the perception of a decisive breakthrough.
Perhaps this was aided by external intelligence or cyber-operations, which may have persuaded Washington to join in, either to tip the balance more swiftly or to claim credit for an imminent resolution without risking long-term entanglement.
According to a New York Times report, "How Trump Decided to Strike Iran," the president expressed admiration for the Israeli operation, describing it to his advisers as “excellent” and “successful.”
At the level of transatlantic relations, the US-Israeli military engagement with Iran triggered a sharp pivot in European rhetoric.
In the weeks preceding the escalation, European capitals had grown increasingly vocal in their criticism of Israeli conduct in Gaza, with growing calls for accountability and potential sanctions.
Yet, following the American entry into the war, the tone shifted dramatically. European Union institutions and national governments, whether individually or collectively, rallied behind Israel in language reminiscent of the post–7 October realignment, muting recent calls for a tougher stance on Gaza.
In effect, the US strike helped patch a growing rift between Washington and European allies over Middle East policy and redirected international attention away from Gaza.
Rising powers like China and Russia appeared reluctant to intervene decisively on behalf of their Iranian partner.
Each has its own set of strategic interests that can be appeased or negotiated separately — whether in the South China Sea or Ukraine — making it unlikely for them to escalate over Tehran.
For now, neither Moscow nor Beijing seems willing to jeopardize more vital interests for the sake of a costly regional gamble in the Middle East.
Still, even though President Trump achieved the semblance of a low-cost, high-impact strike followed by a face-saving ceasefire, the underlying structural tensions remain unresolved and prone to resurface.
The so-called “Twelve-Day War,” as Trump now brands it, laid bare the destructive reach of both parties.
Israel endured daily missile barrages and visible devastation, despite the lack of reliable damage assessments.
Meanwhile, Iran sent a calculated message by symbolically targeting the US military base in Qatar, signaling its capacity to widen the conflict if necessary.
The result is a renewed sense of urgency for Washington and Tel Aviv to cripple Iran’s nuclear programme, while Tehran races to restore and enhance its deterrence capabilities.
Though this round concluded with congratulations and blessings exchanged between recent combatants, and hopeful proclamations for peace in the Middle East and beyond, the path forward is fraught with distrust.
The diplomatic track, which President Trump now promotes as the next chapter, will be weighed down by deep skepticism about US-Israeli intentions.
This mistrust is compounded by the elaborate deception campaign employed in the lead-up to the strike, including the strategic use of intermediaries to maintain the illusion of ongoing negotiations, even as war preparations advanced.
Such duplicity severely undermines the minimum level of credibility required for any meaningful diplomatic process.
For diplomacy to succeed, particularly in a region as volatile as the Middle East, all parties — and especially guarantors — must possess a modicum of trustworthiness.
Without that, even the most elegantly designed negotiation frameworks are likely to collapse under the weight of mutual suspicion, leaving the conflict suspended in a fragile truce, always one miscalculation away from reigniting.
*The writer is an Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies expert.
Short link: