Nournews: With the launch of military attacks by the Zionist regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the overt involvement of the United States in the conflict, regional tensions have reached unprecedented levels. Analyzing how the U.S. government supported this confrontation—especially during Donald Trump’s presidency—offers a clearer picture of the sustainability or fragility of ceasefires.
The report, referencing Isaac Chotiner’s interview in The New Yorker with veteran American analyst and Carnegie Endowment expert Aaron David Miller, aims to shed light on the strategic, psychological, and political dimensions of U.S. behavior in this crisis.
Trump, Israel, and the unintended cycle of conflict
According to Miller, although Trump personally lacked an appetite for full-scale war with Iran, he also had no clear strategy to contain the crisis. As a result, Washington was effectively drawn into a gradual intervention. The deployment of advanced equipment such as F-35 fighter jets, missile defense systems, B-2 bombers, and intelligence support for Tel Aviv reflects America’s practical commitment to a containment strategy. Trump's unwavering political support for Netanyahu—despite domestic opposition—further deepened this involvement. He sought to project strength and unconditional alliance in order to preserve his image and assert his global leadership credentials.
Ambiguity, containment, or complicity: Trump’s dual role in the Crisis
Miller argues that Trump’s foreign policy was more influenced by momentary concerns and personal image than long-term strategic interests. Although The New York Times described the U.S. as being in a state of “political siege” in response to Israel’s attacks, evidence suggests that Trump had the option to delay operations or buy time for diplomacy—but he chose not to. This unwillingness stemmed not from incapacity but from a political decision. Despite being aware of the risks of escalation, Trump moved in sync with Tel Aviv's policies, implicitly backing actions that nearly led to a point of no return, including potential strikes on Iran's Fordow facility.
Iran’s deterrence and the deadlock of regime change scenarios
Miller believes Iran, with its missile capabilities, operational experience, and geopolitical position, has the capacity to respond to any aggression. The 2019 attack on Aramco facilities and the potential targeting of U.S. interests in the region are part of Iran's deterrent arsenal. Moreover, none of the three traditional models of regime change—popular uprising, military intervention, or direct occupation—are applicable to Iran. Therefore, even heavy military strikes would neither dismantle its nuclear program nor alter its political structure.
An unstable ceasefire: A tool in the maximum pressure strategy
In Miller’s view, Netanyahu’s ultimate goal is not merely to limit Iran’s nuclear program, but to fundamentally change the nature of the Islamic Republic’s political system. For this reason, even if temporary ceasefires occur, they cannot be seen as an end to the crisis or a reduction in hostility. Rather, such ceasefires are part of a larger strategy aimed at sustained pressure and destabilization. In this context, continued missile deterrence, smart diplomatic engagement, and resilience in the face of foreign threats are key to ensuring national security and protecting Iran’s strategic interests. The current ceasefire, though seemingly calming, does not guarantee lasting peace. In the absence of a genuine diplomatic framework, it reflects not a consensus but a temporary balance of threat.
NOURNEWS