Just hours after the start of the Israeli operation against Iran, the American administration is working to distance itself from the action. Statements by the President and Secretary of State emphasize that this is a unilateral move by Israel, without American involvement. Even if the U.S. did not play an active role in the deception tactics that preceded the operation, it appears the President, despite preferring the diplomatic path, chose not to veto the Israeli action.
It is likely that the administration will now seek to leverage the military operation and use Iran’s weakened position to push for an accelerated negotiation process — a key component in the exit strategy from this campaign. In recent hours, the President has even stressed that he hopes Iran will return to the negotiating table.
Spokespersons for the administration clarified that their main efforts are focused on defending American assets in the region, but also emphasized that they will not hesitate to defend Israel. The assessment is that the U.S. will try to avoid direct involvement in the confrontation, particularly any attack on Iran itself — and for now, such a scenario is not being addressed publicly. However, an Iranian attack on American targets is expected to prompt an immediate U.S. response against Iranian assets.
At the same time, the American dilemma over the extent of its involvement is expected to sharpen if there are serious attacks on Israel or on one of its other regional allies — especially Saudi Arabia — or if it becomes clear that the Israeli operation did not cause significant damage to the nuclear project. In such a case, pressure on Washington to complete the mission itself — using its military capabilities — may increase.
Just hours after the start of the Israeli operation against Iran, the American administration is working to distance itself from the action. Statements by the President and Secretary of State emphasize that this is a unilateral move by Israel, without American involvement. Even if the U.S. did not play an active role in the deception tactics that preceded the operation, it appears the President, despite preferring the diplomatic path, chose not to veto the Israeli action.
It is likely that the administration will now seek to leverage the military operation and use Iran’s weakened position to push for an accelerated negotiation process — a key component in the exit strategy from this campaign. In recent hours, the President has even stressed that he hopes Iran will return to the negotiating table.
Spokespersons for the administration clarified that their main efforts are focused on defending American assets in the region, but also emphasized that they will not hesitate to defend Israel. The assessment is that the U.S. will try to avoid direct involvement in the confrontation, particularly any attack on Iran itself — and for now, such a scenario is not being addressed publicly. However, an Iranian attack on American targets is expected to prompt an immediate U.S. response against Iranian assets.
At the same time, the American dilemma over the extent of its involvement is expected to sharpen if there are serious attacks on Israel or on one of its other regional allies — especially Saudi Arabia — or if it becomes clear that the Israeli operation did not cause significant damage to the nuclear project. In such a case, pressure on Washington to complete the mission itself — using its military capabilities — may increase.