19/06/2025 12:56
19/06/2025 12:56
19/06/2025 12:56
19/06/2025 12:56
19/06/2025 12:55
19/06/2025 12:55
19/06/2025 12:55
19/06/2025 12:55
19/06/2025 12:55
19/06/2025 12:55
Parana » Informe Digital
Fecha: 19/06/2025 06:38
While President Donald Trump weighs the possibility of joining Israel’s attacks on Iran—which may include using bunker-buster bombs to target deeply buried nuclear facilities—his senior officials are engaged in discussions on how the United States can strike those targets without becoming embroiled in a large-scale war, sources familiar with the situation revealed. For Trump, the primary aim has become to avoid an escalation of the conflict that began last Thursday. Although he is receptive to arguments, including those from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, asserting that only the U.S. can decisively halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he remains cautious about becoming entangled in the kind of foreign conflict he pledged to evade, according to the sources. Over the weekend, some U.S. allies received indications that Trump intended to adopt a wait-and-see approach regarding what Israel accomplishes in its initial week of operations against Iran’s nuclear program before deciding on the deployment of U.S. military assets, two European diplomats suggested. Just a day before that deadline, Trump stated he had not yet made a final decision on how to move forward. In discussions with U.S. allies on Wednesday, administration officials did not lean definitively in one direction or another, the diplomats noted. Trump has reviewed attack plans against Iran but is holding off to see if Tehran will backtrack on its nuclear ambitions, a person familiar with the matter informed CNN. “I like to make the final decision a second before the deadline,” Trump remarked in the Oval Office. “Especially in war, things change rapidly. It can shift from one extreme to another.” While the president considers his options, he has expressed that he does not believe a U.S. attack would necessarily equate to full-scale military involvement in a foreign war, as per a source close to the situation. Those close to Trump have argued that decisive attacks differ from broader actions that could prolong the conflict. “The U.S. could simply drop a few MOABs on Fordow, destroy the last nuclear asset, and then leave,” wrote David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador to Israel during his first term, on social media. MOAB refers to a massive ordnance air blast, nicknamed the “mother of all bombs.” “The airspace is already clear,” Friedman continued. “How does that constitute getting dragged into something?” While Trump keeps his options open, the administration continues to receive counsel from allies cautioning against offensive U.S. involvement. Concerns range from the potential for Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global oil flow, to the possibility that Iran might quickly escalate its nuclear weapon development in response to a U.S. attack, as noted by two sources familiar with the discussions. Iran has vowed to retaliate if U.S. forces join Israel in the assault. “If the Americans decide to get militarily involved, we will have no choice but to retaliate wherever we find targets that need to be attacked,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi said in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “That is clear and straightforward. We act in self-defense.” One course of action discussed privately among Trump’s allies in recent weeks has been the 2020 decision to kill high-ranking Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani near Baghdad International Airport via a MQ-9 Reaper drone strike. Though the attack marked a serious escalation prompting Iranian retaliation, it did not result in outright war. Trump administration officials have cited the Soleimani strike to counter theories suggesting a U.S. attack would lead to “uncontrollable escalation,” sources familiar with those discussions indicated. For now, Trump has publicly dismissed the idea of targeting Iran’s supreme leader. National security officials in Trump’s administration have made a concerted effort to align their recommendations as they present options to the president. “My job, our job, the president’s and mine, at all times, is to ensure that we, the president, have options and are informed about what those options might be and what the ramifications of those options would be,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated to a Senate panel on Wednesday. Trump’s CIA director, John Ratcliffe, has been one of the key figures consulted in recent days, both before Israeli strikes and as the president considers his next steps. Ratcliffe attended a retreat at Camp David on June 8, shortly before the first Israeli attack, where he updated Trump on the latest intelligence regarding Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s probable next moves, according to a source familiar with the discussion. The Camp David retreat was not initially planned as an intelligence-focused meeting, as evidenced by the fact that Ratcliffe and the National Intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbard, were not initially invited, a senior administration official noted. Ratcliffe made a last-minute trip and briefed the president on the rapidly evolving situation. Another crucial voice for Trump has been General Michael Kurilla, commander of U.S. Central Command. In recent weeks, some U.S. military leaders, including Kurilla, have called for increased resources to defend and support Israel while it engages in exchanges of fire with Iran, two knowledgeable sources indicated. “[Kurilla] wants to be prepared for the most challenging contingencies,” one source familiar with the topic responded, referring to his efforts to position U.S. assets in the Middle East in support of Israel. A strong advocate for Israel, Kurilla has been pressing Hegseth and Trump for several months to deploy an increasing number of military assets to the region in anticipation of a potential conflict, either between the U.S. and Iranian allies, including the Houthi rebel group in Yemen, or between Israel and Iran. The possibility that Trump could strike Iran without becoming entrenched in a quagmire is a topic of debate. Some Iran experts caution that a prolonged confrontation could last throughout Trump’s presidency and incur a high toll in American lives and resources at Israel’s behest. “Any U.S. attack will lead to a full-scale Iranian response against American bases in the region, resulting in total war between the U.S. and Iran,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, in an interview with CNN. Tehran may not be able to sustain a long struggle against the U.S., but it would not be an easy conflict for Washington, he added. Many of Trump’s most ardent supporters have also questioned whether it is possible to conduct strikes in Iran without becoming embroiled in a generational conflict. “Above all, this is not our war. This is Iran’s war. The president of the United States is the commander-in-chief of our forces. He listens to everyone who works with us in national security,” stated Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who met with Trump at the White House on Wednesday. “I believe he has done a masterful job of dealing with an extremely difficult situation,” Risch commented the day before his meeting with the president. Another Republican senator who spoke with Trump this week, Josh Hawley of Missouri, expressed reservations about the U.S. undertaking offensive actions against Iran. “I don’t want us to fight a war. I don’t want another war in the Middle East… I am concerned about our sudden military build-up in the region,” Hawley said a day after his discussion with Trump. The potential for Iranian retaliation is strong enough that, even before Trump makes a decision, U.S. armed forces have begun contingency preparations, considering the likelihood of Iranian responses against American forces should Trump proceed with an attack, as per a source familiar with the planning. Following frequent discussions with Netanyahu, where the Israeli leader has made it clear that Israel needs U.S. support to achieve its ultimate goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the president acknowledged on Wednesday that U.S. involvement would expedite Israel’s success. “We are the only ones who have the capability to do that, but that doesn’t mean we are going to do it at all,” Trump stated. However, he also reaffirmed his commitment to avoiding a “long-term war.” “I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” he asserted. “That’s it. I’m not thinking long-term or short-term. And I’ve been saying that for 20 years.”
Ver noticia original
 300 x 300 px.gif)
Examedia © 2024
Desarrollado por