Israel attacks Iran – will the US join the conflict?
The two countries have been exchanging fire since Israel launched air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and infrastructure on Friday 13 June. But without US involvement, it may only have created a “wounded big beast”
“Donald Trump faced one of the most monumental decisions of his presidency on 17 June as he debated whether to join a war against Iran that risked sucking Washington into a new Middle Eastern conflict but also offered the chance to eliminate a foe’s nuclear programme,” says Michael Birnbaum in The Washington Post.
Posting throughout the day on social media, Trump said the US had “complete and total control of the skies over Iran”, warned Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei that he was an “easy target”, and demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender”. He had hurried home early from the G7 summit in Canada to attend an 80-minute meeting in the White House situation room, after a conversation with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israel and Iran have been exchanging fire since 13 June, when Israel launched air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and infrastructure, shortly after Iran had “brazenly flouted” the two-month deadline Trump had given Iran for engaging in talks, says Newsweek’s Dan Perry.
MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Will Trump join the conflict between Israel and Iran?
Netanyahu’s attack has been years in the making, says William Hague in The Times. The idea that a theocratic regime in Tehran that threatens to destroy other nations should never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons is “sound”. However, Netanyahu’s insistence that “diplomacy could never work” has “severely undermined” efforts by the US and others. Trump abandoned the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in his first term and, although “second-term Trump” has been trying to “stick a deal back together”, Iran now has “far more” enriched uranium. The increasing likelihood of nuclear “breakout” made Israel’s attack easier to justify. It helped that Iran’s key ally, Bashar al-Assad, has fled Syria, and proxies in Lebanon and Gaza have been “hammered by the Israelis”. The Iranian leaders are “cornered.”
Only the US has weapons powerful enough to blow up Iran’s main nuclear site at Fordow, says Roger Boyes in The Times. Without its involvement, Iran, with Russian and Chinese backing, remains a “wounded big beast”. Khamenei has warned of “irreparable harm” if the US military becomes involved. There is also the risk that any intervention that “appears externally driven” backfires, says Dan Perry. The Islamic Republic is run by an “unaccountable clerical elite” which controls its people through censorship and repression, but if Iran’s globally minded citizens “despise” the regime, society remains “deeply nationalistic”.
Civil society is fearful and fragmented, and many people are economically dependent on the state. This means the “most plausible scenario is a palace coup: a rupture within the military”. Trump is averse to protracted military engagements, but the success of Israel’s strikes and his love of “dramatic” wins may incline him to take steps that would allow him to position himself as the “architect of Iran’s ‘freedom moment’”. “At a moment of grave uncertainty, one thing is not in doubt” – Iranians deserve “better than the theocratic prison” to which they’ve been consigned since 1979.
This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.
-
UK sets out crypto regulatory proposalsThe government has tabled legislation that sets out a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, while the regulator will consult on balancing innovation and consumer protections
-
What does an interest rate cut mean for my pension?Interest rates have been cut from 4% to 3.75%. For pension savers and retirees the effects of the drop will depend on the type of retirement pot they have, but could be significant.
-
The war dividend – how to invest in defence stocks as the world arms upWestern governments are back on a war footing. Investors should be prepared, too, says Jamie Ward
-
Did COP30 achieve anything to tackle climate change?The COP30 summit was a failure. But the world is going green regardless, says Simon Wilson
-
The global defence boom has moved beyond Europe – here’s how to profitOpinion Tom Bailey, head of research for the Future of Defence Indo-Pac ex-China UCITS ETF, picks three defence stocks where he'd put his money
-
Will the internet break – and can we protect it?The internet is a delicate global physical and digital network that can easily be paralysed. Why is that, and what can be done to bolster its defences?
-
Canada will be a winner in this new era of deglobalisation and populismGreg Eckel, portfolio manager at Canadian General Investments, selects three Canadian stocks
-
Jim O’Neill on nearly 25 years of the BRICSJim O’Neill, who coined the acronym BRICS in 2001, tells MoneyWeek how the group is progressing
-
'My predictions for the next 25 years'Opinion What will the world look like when MoneyWeek celebrates its 50th birthday? Matthew Lynn shares his predictions
-
How have central banks evolved in the last century – and are they still fit for purpose?The rise to power and dominance of the central banks has been a key theme in MoneyWeek in its 25 years. Has their rule been benign?
