In this photo provided by the White House, President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio seated in the situation room of the White House on Saturday while they were monitoring the mission that withdrew three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites.
Daniel Torok / La Maison Blanche via Getty Images
hide
tilting legend
Daniel Torok / La Maison Blanche via Getty Images
All presidents deal Extraordinary tests.
Many are not by their choice. But some are.
And President Trump’s decision to Strike the nuclear installations of Iran is the one that this president has chosen.
So how will the policy of this decision take place?
Here are five ways to think about it:
1. Trump ran on a commitment to end “Forever Wars”, so what comes is essential.
As expected, the Republicans rally around Trump after the strike, but some influential personalities from the Maga base are not delighted with the prospect of involvement in another conflict in the Middle East.
Trump’s action was unexpected, since, until very recently, the president seemed to have negotiated with Iran about his nuclear program. Trump does not want an prolonged war and certainly does not want to hire troops on the ground for effort.
Before the strike, Surveys have shown The Americans considered Iran as a fairly serious potential threat. But they were also largely against the United States who joined Israel in his military campaign against Iran.
Now the test for Trump is whether the conflict will be contained. The policy of a single operation is one thing. The policy of something more prolonged is another.
2. The full impact of the attack is not yet known. What will Americans learn and when?
Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth (left), accompanied by the president of the joint staff chiefs, General Dan Caine, responds to a journalist at a press conference in Pentagon on Sunday in Arlington, Virginia.
Andrew Harnik / Getty images
hide
tilting legend
Andrew Harnik / Getty images
Trump says strikes “have erased” Iran’s nuclear installations. The administration will have to assess how much they have succeeded, probably with satellite photographs and human intelligence.
After the intelligence failures that led to the war in Iraq, the country is rightly more skeptical about what the government says. In addition, with about half of the suspicious country towards Trump anyway, the public will probably expect a disadvantage evidence From a severe setback to Iran’s nuclear capacities.
Sunday evening, Trump posted on Truth Social That satellite images support its affirmation of “monumental damage”.
But independent experts Analysis of commercial satellite images Geoff Brumfield of NPR said that the key elements of the Iranian nuclear company may have survived the attack.
3. The results of Iran’s reprisals will have consequences.
Israel has long been planning an attack on Iranian nuclear installations and Iran has been seriously hampered in the past two years. With so many Iranian allies in the exhausted region – Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis to Russia concerned by his war in Ukraine and a reversed Syrian regime – time seemed mature for the attack.
Now that it happened, Iran will almost certainly seek to answer. With his abilities in question, Trump may have estimated that the attack was worth the risk of potential reprisals.
The Trump administration will endeavor to postpone these possible attempts, but soldiers down to governors and local police services, the country is – and will – at an increased level in security concern.
A fatal attack on Americans all over the world – members of the service abroad to embassies or civilians – would have serious political ramifications in addition to the human cost.
4. The strike raises questions about Trump’s approach to foreign affairs.
Beyond Trump’s campaign undertakes to adopt a less interventionist approach than former Republican presidents, Trump also put pressure on peace agreements abroad.
The biggest offers, however, escaped him, whether it be a permanent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, wanting to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and – until Saturday evening – in search of a nuclear agreement with Iran.
So why has Trump changed his approach to Iran? Was it because he had determined in private that the talks of a new nuclear agreement were going nowhere (after having fallen from that concluded by the Obama administration during his first mandate)-or was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forced his hand?
When Netanyahu advanced with attacks on Iran, it put Trump in a corner. Politically, it is difficult for an American president not to publicly seem to be largely supporting Israel. And Trump never wanted to look weak.
Although he said he wanted to be the president of peace, the projection of tenacity and force has also always been at the heart of Trump’s policy.
The way in which his approach to “force by force” takes place during the 3 and a half years remains in his presidency remains to be seen.
5. Do not expect the debate on the authorization of the Congress goes very far.
There are members of the congress on both sides of the aisle who would like to see presidents going to the congress for the authorization of a serious and non -defensive military action.
Senator Tim Kaine, D -VA., Pose a clearer language which makes the pre -authorization of the congress a requirement – and he did it during the republican and democratic presidencies. Bipartite members of the Chamber do the same.
That debate will continue, but with the Republicans largely rallying around Trump, it is very unlikely that the requirements go through one or the other room.
Democrats also run a certain risk to make strikes a central problem (not to mention the removal of Trump), because the Republicans would pour them as defending Iran – whatever the merits of their argument. If it becomes clear that strikes, in fact, considerably weaken Iran’s nuclear capacities, it would probably be to Trump’s political advantage.
At the same time, Trump’s unilateral action is also based on the message of Democrats on Trump pushing the limits of his authority in all aspects of the presidency.