Nournews: Tensions in the region have increased to an unprecedented level with the beginning of the Zionist regime’s military attacks on the Islamic Republic and the overt involvement of the U.S. Examining how the U.S. government supported these conflicts, particularly during Trump’s tenure, can offer a clearer picture of the stability and fragility of ceasefires.
The report, based on an interview by Isaac Chotiner from The New Yorker with Aaron David Miller, a seasoned American analyst and Carnegie Foundation expert, seeks to reveal the strategic, psychological, and political dimensions of the United States' behavior in this crisis.
Trump’s government, Israel, and an unwanted cycle of conflicts
According to Miller, while Trump personally did not intend to get involved in an all-out war with Iran, he did not have a determined strategy to contain the crisis. As a result, Washington was dragged into gradual involvement. Deployment of advanced equipment like F-35 fighters and missile defense systems, along with B-2 bombers and backing Tel Aviv in terms of intelligence, indicates how the U.S. was practically committed to containing Iran. Trump’s strong political support for Netanyahu – despite domestic opposition – deepened this role. He tried to demonstrate decisiveness and unconditional support to both preserve his reputation and showcase his leadership power on the global stage.
Trump: Siege or collaboration? The dual role of Trump in the crisis
Miller believes that Trump’s foreign policy was driven more by impulsive decisions and personal concerns than by long-term national interests. Although The New York Times described a “political siege” of the U.S. government in response to Israel’s attacks, evidence suggests that Trump could have delayed the operation or allowed time for diplomacy — but he chose not to.
This lack of inclination was rooted in a political decision, not in an inability to act. Despite being aware of the risks of escalating conflict, Trump aligned himself with Tel Aviv’s policies and even reached a point of no return after targeting Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility.
Iran’s deterrence and the deadlock of regime change scenarios
According to Miller, Iran possesses the capacity to respond to any form of attack through its missile capabilities, operational experience, and geopolitical position. The 2019 attack on Aramco facilities and the potential to target U.S. interests in the region are part of this deterrent power. At the same time, none of the three known regime change models—popular uprising, military intervention, or direct occupation—are applicable to Iran. Therefore, even large-scale attacks will neither eliminate Iran’s nuclear program nor lead to a change in its political structure.
Unstable ceasefire: A tool in the maximum pressure strategy
From Miller’s perspective, Netanyahu’s primary objective is not merely to limit Iran’s nuclear program, but ultimately to alter the very nature of the Islamic Republic’s political system. Thus, even if temporary ceasefires are reached between the two sides, they cannot be interpreted as the end of the crisis or a reduction in hostility. Rather, these ceasefires are part of a broader game designed to sustain pressure and promote instability.
In this context, the continuation of missile deterrence, strategic use of diplomatic opportunities, and resilience in the face of external threats are key to securing Iran’s national security and strategic interests. The current ceasefire, though seemingly de-escalatory, is not a guarantee of lasting peace. In the absence of a genuine diplomatic framework, it represents not a consensus, but a fragile balance of threats.
NOURNEWS