Trump Peace Deal in Flames? A New US-Israel Nexus!!!

More on the Israel Iran Conflict

Jun 13, 2025

Trump’s New Push on Iran

In early 2025, the White House quietly relaunched nuclear talks with Iran. Trump dispatched his envoys to Oman and elsewhere for a fourth round of negotiations, and publicly insisted both sides were making progress. On May 15, at a business forum in Doha, Trump told attendees Iran had “sort of agreed to the terms” of a deal. By late May, he declared the US and Iran were “close to reaching a nuclear agreement” after repeated meetings. A senior US official on the talks called them “encouraging” and said both sides had agreed to work on the technical details. All sides reportedly expected another round of talks in early June – indeed, the White House had scheduled negotiator Steve Witkoff to fly to Oman on June 15 for “the next round of talks”.

Trump has emphasized that his vision for a deal is tougher than the old Obama-era pact. He told NBC News that he wants total dismantlement of Iran’s weapons capability and warned, “if they don’t make a deal, there will be a bombing”. In public appearances, he stressed that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon” – but aside from that one demand, he even held out the promise of economic engagement. “Other than that, I want them to be successful. I want them to be tremendous. We’ll help them be successful. We’ll trade with them,” Trump said in mid-2025, outlining a carrot‑and‑stick approach. In Twitter posts, he urged Tehran to “just do it” and accept a deal “before it is too late”, casting the crisis as Iran’s last chance to avoid conflict.

Thus, on the eve of the strikes, Trump had been riding a narrow diplomatic path: offering Iran a framework to limit its enrichment facilities while promising sanctions relief and integration into global trade if it complied. He repeatedly warned Iran and Israel alike that he preferred diplomacy but would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. U.S. officials portrayed Trump’s posture as firm but constructive – for example, one aide noted Iran’s outreach in talks included proposals for joint enrichment ventures with Gulf neighbors, a sign Tehran was at least exploring negotiations.

Israel’s June 12 Strikes and Rationale

That delicate balance was upset on Thursday, June 12, 2025. Israel launched a swift air campaign across Iran, targeting missile bases, warehouses, and key nuclear-related sites. Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort of Chabad reported that “Israel has initiated a preemptive strike against Iran”. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said dozens of aircraft struck dozens of military and nuclear sites in coordinated raids, aiming “to damage Iran’s nuclear program” and respond to the regime’s long‑standing aggression against Israel. In a statement carried by the San Diego Jewish World and other outlets, Israeli authorities warned civilians to follow safety instructions and stressed the campaign’s defensive purpose. “For years, Iran has been advancing terrorism…while progressing toward nuclear weapons,” the IDF said, concluding that “the State of Israel will not allow a regime whose goal is Israel’s destruction to possess weapons of mass destruction”.

U.S. officials quickly made clear that America did not coordinate the strike. White House National Security Adviser (and Senator) Marco Rubio said Israel had notified the U.S. beforehand and “believe[s] this action was necessary for its self-defense,” while emphasizing that Washington was focused on protecting American forces in the region. He underlined that Iran “should not target U.S. interests or personnel” but made no comment on the merits of the Israeli raid. Ahead of the strikes, Iran had warned that it would hold the U.S. responsible if attacked, but U.S. officials denied any involvement. The operation was officially dubbed “Rising Lion,” and Netanyahu vowed it would proceed “as many days as it takes” to neutralize the threat.

Peacemaking Efforts Interrupted

Israel’s attack has jolted the fragile U.S. diplomatic effort. Within hours, Trump’s Iran negotiators were forced to scramble. “It was unclear how the strikes would affect plans for those discussions,” the AP reported. Pentagon and State Department meetings were hastily convened to assess fallout. Iran immediately signaled defiance, and hawkish figures in Tehran warned that dialogue with the U.S. was off the table. In this climate, the painstaking work of negotiations is suddenly in doubt.

Trump reacted by reiterating his ultimatum to Iran. On Friday, he posted: “I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to ‘just do it,’ … but no matter how hard they tried… they just couldn’t get it done”. He said diplomacy was preferable – urging Iran to seize “perhaps, a second chance” – but warned in the same breath of the looming alternatives. His supporters argue that the Israeli strike only vindicates his warnings about Iran’s ambitions, proving the threat is real and necessitating a hard line. But critics (and some wary allies) counter that Israel’s unilateral move could backfire, harden Iran’s stance, and drive U.S. and Iranian negotiators even further apart.

The administration is now walking a tightrope. The U.S. touted Israel’s right to defend itself, yet it also must salvage whatever remains of the deal prospects. For now, officials stress unity with Israel: Rubio has reassured lawmakers and citizens that the U.S. “remain[s] in close contact with our regional partners”. Lawmakers from both parties echoed this cautionary tone. In Congress, prominent Republicans celebrated Trump’s restraint and diplomatic focus, while Democrats like Sen. Tim Kaine even praised the president “for prioritizing diplomacy” after the strikes. No public U.S. punishment of Israel has been signaled; rather, Trump seems to be trying to keep both pressure and dialogue alive simultaneously.

Evolving U.S.–Israel Ties

The June 12 raids have naturally prompted questions about U.S.–Israel strategy under Trump. Israel’s government, which initially celebrated Trump’s election comeback as a “powerful recommitment to the great alliance”, is confident America will stand by it. In fact, American Jewish organizations swiftly voiced support: Conference of Presidents co-chairs called Israel’s action “necessary and justified defensive action” and insisted “preventing a nuclear Iran is not only a moral obligation — it is a vital American and global strategic interest”. WJC President Ronald Lauder likewise praised Israel’s mission, warning that an Iranian bomb would “endanger the very fabric of civilization” and wishing Israel success in neutralizing the threat.

Yet analysts note a subtle shift in expectations. In the past week alone, Trump has negotiated directly with some of Israel’s adversaries (Houthi rebels, Hamas) in pursuit of hostage releases and ceasefires – moves that reportedly caught Netanyahu by surprise. It is too early to say whether those detours will hinder the overall US-Israel partnership. So far, Trump’s publicly stated position is that U.S. and Israeli objectives on Iran remain aligned: both want zero nuclear weapons on the horizon. U.S. aid and strategic cooperation continue; even if Trump quips about burden-sharing “We give Israel $4 billion a year. That’s a lot, congratulations”, he has maintained an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security during his tenure.

The key issue now is coordination. Trump must reconcile Israel’s bold pre-emption with his own overtures to Iran. For example, if Israel destroyed some of the sites Tehran was offering to disable under talks, Washington may have less leverage to verify any limits. Conversely, Trump’s brokering of new Gulf and Arab-Israel accords in recent years depends on an American role as honest broker; hearing of strikes after the fact could strain that credibility. But Trump’s camp will argue that Israel’s move underlines exactly why Iran must be dealt with firmly, effectively backing up the premise of his diplomacy. As Rubio put it, Iran “should not target U.S. interests or personnel”, implying any future escalation by Tehran would face both American and Israeli opposition.

Conclusion: Trump’s Vision Under Test

Throughout his presidency, Trump has articulated a vision of Middle East stability centered on strength and prosperity. He pointedly withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in 2018, arguing it left too much capacity intact, and he later brokered the Abraham Accords to bring peace between Israel and Arab states. In 2025, he continued to say that the region needs a fresh approach – one that offers Iran economic integration once it complies with strict nuclear limits. “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Other than that,” he told reporters, “I want them to be successful… We’ll help them be successful… We’ll trade with them”. This encapsulates his message that security and prosperity can go hand‑in‑hand if adversaries give up their bomb ambitions. Trump has urged Iran to return to talks “before there is nothing left” of the Iranian empire, suggesting he still believes engagement can pay off. But he must do so while assuring Israel that it will not be abandoned – a delicate balance.

For now, U.S. policy appears to encompass both messages. The administration offered praise for Israel’s self-defense (as seen in Rubio’s remarks) and expressed solidarity against Iran, yet it has not ruled out returning to dialogue with Tehran. How Trump squares these tracks will define the next phase of his Middle East strategy. His backers contend that firm deterrence (including support for Israel’s right to strike) combined with tough diplomacy is the correct formula. Detractors worry the window for a deal has effectively closed.

In the end, the Trump administration will argue that these developments only highlight the need for his approach. Preventing Iran from going nuclear, they say, is in “the vital American and global strategic interest” – echoing Jewish leaders – and Israel’s action has merely dramatized that fact. If Trump can keep Iran’s fear of Israeli retaliation in play, even as he offers a path to prosperity, he believes he will achieve his long-stated goal of a “huge” peace deal. The question now is whether the flames of June 12 will consume that deal, or spur all sides to seize the last chance he has dangled before them.

Notes: This is my own opinion and not the opinion of my employer, State Street, or any other organization. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell any stock. My team and I use a Large Language Model (LLM) aided workflow. This allows us to test 5-10 ideas and curate the best 2-4 a week for you to read. Rest easy that we fact check, edit, and reorganize the writing so that the output is more engaging, more reliable, and more informative than vanilla LLM output. We are always looking for feedback to improve this process.

Additionally, if you would like updates more frequently, follow us on x: https://x.com/cameronfen1. In addition, feel free to send me corrections, new ideas for articles, or anything else you think I would like: cameronfen at gmail dot com.

Contrarian Indicator

Discussion about this post