Trump’s Iran attack shows what it takes to win his military support

When American forces carried out airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last month, the world was shocked that U.S. President Donald Trump, who has consistently maintained that he wanted to avoid foreign military confrontations, directly attacked the Middle Eastern country, even though it was described as just a “surgical strike.”

The attack may have triggered tectonic shifts in the Gulf region, and the rivalry between Iran, the United States and Israel is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. While global attention may now turn to the possibility of a Gaza cease-fire or more U.S. strikes on Iran, my focus is elsewhere.

The most significant point about this incident is the lesson it offers U.S. allies, especially in the Indo-Pacific, about how to convince a hesitant U.S. president to take military action abroad. Israel managed to persuade Trump — who had long avoided foreign intervention — to strike Iran. As a former diplomat, I was struck by the extent of Israel’s diplomatic influence, especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political and negotiating skills, which surpassed all expectations.

How did Israel convince Trump? Put simply, why did Trump, unlike previous presidents who considered it but held back, launch a direct strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities? There are important lessons here for regional players like Taiwan and Japan, who are counting on U.S. intervention in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. After reviewing various U.S. media reports, I have drawn four main lessons:

1. Trump will not help allies that do not have sufficient military power.
2. Those allies must fight desperately for their survival.
3. Furthermore, allies must be able to advance the battle favorably.
4. Finally, the U.S. conservative media must support Trump’s military intervention.

In short, Trump likely approved the operation because he believed striking Iran would be relatively easy and would boost his reputation at home. Israel was already militarily powerful enough to prevent a modern-day Holocaust without the need of U.S. help, and was willing to fight at any cost. On top of that, Israel’s air superiority over Iran made success even more likely and increased the chance that conservative U.S. media would praise the operation.

If my analysis is correct, there is both good and bad news for the world, especially U.S. allies in Asia. The good news is that even the Trump administration might intervene militarily for its allies if certain conditions are met. The bad news is that these conditions are likely to be even tougher for Asian allies, not to mention those in Europe.

CNN reported that during last year’s presidential election, Trump said he told Chinese President Xi Jinping that “if Taiwan is invaded, we will bomb Beijing.” What’s more surprising is that a recording of these remarks exists. At a private meeting with major donors, Trump also said he told Russian President Putin the U.S. would bomb Moscow if Russia invaded Ukraine. Trump reportedly added that Xi thought he was crazy, which I find laughable.

Whether this report is true or not doesn’t really matter. Even if it is, Trump administration officials will stay silent and he will just deny it. The real issue is not just Trump’s habit of speaking without thinking and saying whatever comes to mind — that hasn’t changed — what matters more is that this could suggest his administration is still willing to launch military operations overseas if certain conditions are met.

Another factor adding to China’s uncertainty is how divided the Trump administration was over military action in Iran. This time, however, it appears that in Washington the “supremacists” or “maximalists,” who take a hard line on Iran, won out over the “restrainers,” who oppose foreign intervention and the China-focused “prioritizers.”

Of course, I don’t deny that these factions exist. Still, the second Trump administration may be a bit different from the first. Back then, many capable experts with strong opinions and deep knowledge surrounded the president. They shared one thing in common: While they weren’t afraid to question the president's intelligence, they all had real expertise and pride in their work.

Of course, Trump never trusted such people. With few exceptions, most left the administration before finishing their terms. That may be why there are no policy experts with that same pride in the current second Trump administration. For this reason, I doubt it’s useful to sort the president’s aides by their policy views and positions and argue about which faction is stronger.

If the president had a solid strategy and philosophy, clear policy goals and listened carefully to his staff before making decisions, then this kind of analysis might help predict future actions. But the current U.S. administration does not meet these standards. And if that’s true, the recent U.S. strike on Iran will eventually force tough decisions on America’s friends and allies around the world.