More than a day after Israel launched Operation “Rising Lion,” U.S. administration spokespersons continue to express support for the Israeli decision, emphasizing Israel’s right to self-defense.
President Trump reiterated that Iran brought the Israeli move upon itself after adopting hardline positions during rounds of negotiations with the U.S. However, he emphasized that it is still not too late for Iran to reach an agreement that would halt the military escalation. He stated that the Israeli operation might even help promote a future agreement.
During an emergency session of the UN Security Council, the American representative stressed that “the United States will continue to pursue a diplomatic solution that ensures Iran will never acquire nuclear weapons and will not pose a threat to regional stability.” He added that “President Trump was clearly elected to promote peace and avoid the mistakes of previous administrations that led to endless wars.”
Since the beginning of the operation, Trump has backed Israel and has not missed an opportunity to boast about the success of American technologies incorporated into the Israeli operation. Still, the administration repeatedly emphasizes that this is a unilateral Israeli move with no direct U.S. military involvement. American officials clarified that while Israel did inform the administration in advance of its intent to launch the operation, it was defined as essential for Israel’s self-defense.
A White House official, in a conversation with journalist Barak Ravid, denied claims from Jerusalem sources that Trump fully supported the operation and clarified that the president had reservations about its timing. Furthermore, the official noted that “at this stage” the U.S. does not intend to join the offensive. It should be noted that, although opposition within MAGA circles is currently limited, voices against expanding U.S. involvement are already emerging.
In any case, the U.S. administration will soon face a strategic decision regarding its ongoing policy:
On one hand, there is a desire to avoid direct military involvement in the campaign against Iran, except for assistance in defending against Iranian missiles and rockets launched toward Israel;
On the other hand, there is the understanding that only a direct American military threat - or better yet, actual participation in the campaign - might push Iran toward agreeing to a deal, in line with President Trump’s core objective.
What might shift the administration’s position?
• Direct harm to American interests - The administration continues to stress that “our highest and absolute priority is the protection of U.S. citizens, personnel, and forces deployed in the region.”
• Severe damage on Israeli soil or an Iranian strike on strategic targets in U.S.-friendly countries.
• Ongoing Israeli failure to significantly damage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure despite airstrikes.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi updated the Security Council that the aboveground structure at the Natanz facility, where 60% uranium enrichment was being conducted, had been destroyed, though there were no indications of damage to underground centrifuge cascades. Still, damage to the power supply may have affected the centrifuges. Grossi added that facilities in Fordow and Isfahan were also attacked, but details on the extent of the damage were not provided.
• An Iranian decision to end IAEA oversight, especially if it announces withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)-a move that would be considered a red line on the international stage.
In any scenario involving the end of hostilities, it is likely that the campaign will require a diplomatic initiative in which the U.S. will have a leading role. America’s ability to influence its outcome will largely depend on how Iran perceives the extent of damage to its nuclear program - and the U.S. administration’s willingness to take an active role in the military campaign.