Trump struggles with Iran message as Republicans diverge over attack
Getty ImagesAs the massive size and scope of Israel's overnight attacks on Iran have come into view on Friday, Donald Trump is presented with a major new foreign policy crisis - as well as a diplomatic dilemma.
How does the American president who promised to be a peacemaker handle a dramatic military escalation in the Middle East?
In the hours after the strike, Trump appears to be struggling to find a consistent message in the face of a grave blow to his diplomatic efforts.
Last night, US diplomats reacted coolly to the first reports of the Israeli strikes. While it was clear that American forces had advance notice of what was coming, a statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasised the US was not involved in the logistics or planning of the attack.
By Friday morning, the president himself was commenting on his Truth Social account, with a sombre message directed at the Iranian leadership - more "I told you so" than a clear plan to stop the warfare.
"Certain Iranian hardliners spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen," Trump wrote. "They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!"
He followed that up with a shorter post, noting that the 60-day deadline he had given the Iranians for a deal had expired - but still holding out hope. "Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!" he wrote.
In comments to American media outlets, though, Trump's message was more muddled.
He told CNN that the US "of course" supports Israel "and supported it like nobody has ever supported it".
"I think it's been excellent," he said of Israel's strikes in an ABC interview. He added that the US gave Iran a chance, but they didn't take it. "They got hit about as hard as you're going to get hit. And there's more to come - a lot more."
In another twist, to the Wall Street Journal he said the US received more than just a heads-up from Israel: "We know what's going on." He also called Israel's move "a very successful attack, to put it mildly."
According to Daniel Byman, from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, Israel's move represents a new willingness to go against American preferences in the region. For a more traditional American administration, such open defiance would be a significant affront.
But for Trump, his grab-bag of comments after Israel's attack illustrates how different rules apply - and that while Israel is clearly operating according to its own schedule and agenda, that may not lead to a clear break between the two longtime allies.
"He doesn't feel bound by any of his past statements," Byman said.
As Iran assesses the damage – including more than 90 dead, explosions in its capital city Tehran, and what the Israel Defense Force described as significant damage to the Natanz nuclear facility - Israel is activating tens of thousands of its soldiers and continuing what its officials say will be a two-week military campaign. The prospects for peace seem dimmer by the hour.
Trump's strategy, at the moment, appears to be hoping that the military action jolts Iran into making new concessions – a delicate dance of distancing the US from Israel's actions while still trying to use them to gain advantage at the negotiating table.
By his own acknowledgement, however, key Iranian leaders have been killed in the strikes - and Iran is currently focusing its diplomatic efforts on appeals to the United Nations Security Council, where it has labelled Israel's action an "act of war".
"I think that Netanyahu just torpedoed the nuclear talks for the time being," said Sina Azodi, assistant professor of Middle East Politics in George Washington University's School of International Affairs. "You cannot beat up a guy and then say come and negotiate with me."
The US still plans to hold scheduled talks with Iranian officials in Oman on Sunday. Will Todman, a senior fellow in the Middle East programme at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, said a US-Iranian deal, if it were to happen, would have a "dramatic impact" on Israel's strategy going forward.
"Israel would be much more constrained in the approach that it can take to its efforts to downgrade Iran's nuclear programme, but also its military capabilities," he said, adding that any kind of deal was unlikely to happen at this point.
That may be just fine with some key members of the Republican Party - exposing what could be a growing divide between conservative pro-Israel foreign policy hawks in Congress and the America First, isolationist sympathies of many in the Trump administration.
"How does the America First foreign policy doctrine and foreign policy agenda... stay consistent with this right now?" Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and vocal Trump supporter, asked during an internet livestream that was broadcasting as the Israeli strikes began Thursday evening, Politico reported.
At about the same time, more bellicose Republicans were celebrating the attacks on social media.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to X to post: "Game on. Pray for Israel".
"Israel IS right - and has a right - to defend itself!" Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson wrote.
Within the White House, many of the more vocal advocates for military action against Iran have been sidelined in recent months, including former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who reportedly had consulted with Israel on Iran attack plans before Trump requested his resignation in early May.
The president's most senior advisers, including Vice-President JD Vance, have been wary of allowing America to be pulled into new conflicts – or becoming overly involved in foreign policy concerns that they view as removed from core US interests.
"Previously, it seems that those advocating for restraint were ascendant in the administration, but I think ultimately, this comes down to President Trump alone," said Todman. "The statements that we saw from him this morning seem to indicate that he's open to providing more support to Israel, depending on how the next few days play out."
With American forces based across the Middle East, involvement may be unavoidable. Just five months into his second term in office, the peacemaker president could have a new war on his hands.
Additional reporting by Brandon Drenon