When President Donald Trump announced late Saturday that he ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, critics on both the left and the right feared a spiral into a wider war.
What the “12-day war” teaches us about Trump’s foreign policy
Trump attacked Iran. What he did next was even more revealing.
Andrew Prokop is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He’s worked at Vox since the site’s launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker’s Washington, DC, bureau.
Yet just two days later, Trump announced a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran that he claimed would end what he called “the 12-day war” entirely. And though this ceasefire looked quite fragile at first, three days later, it’s still holding.
There’s much we still don’t know about whether Trump’s strikes were successful in their short-term objective of disabling Iran’s nuclear program. And of course, the long-term consequences of the war for Iran and the region are very far from clear.
The past week’s events did, however, clarify some things about Trump and his approach to foreign policy in his second term. Specifically, though Trump attacked Iran’s nuclear program, he quickly pivoted to a ceasefire, suggesting that he’s still wary of the hawks’ transformational “regime change” ambitions. He instead prefers to deal with countries’ existing leaders at the negotiating table — and views military force as a tool to get himself a better deal.
At first, it seemed that Trump had handed hawks on the right a decisive victory. Sweeping aside the concerns of the “America First” faction that urged restraint and feared entanglement in a new “forever war,” Trump supported Israel’s attack on Iran and then sent US bombers in as well.
But what Trump did next is just as revealing. Though the Iranian government was badly weakened, and some hawks were hoping it could be toppled, Trump demurred, dismissing Iran’s retaliation against the US on Monday as inconsequential and working to put together a ceasefire. That is, he had an opportunity to push onward for regime change in Tehran but turned it down.
Then, when it looked like the new ceasefire might not hold, Trump profanely berated both Iran and Israel and particularly urged Israel to scale back a retaliatory mission that was in progress. After Israel complied, Trump did a solid for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a Truth Social post urging Israeli authorities to cancel Netanyahu’s corruption trial.
Finally, Trump also declared the US strikes a complete success, insisting that Iran’s nuclear program has been wiped out and disputing leaked intelligence estimates that say otherwise. He seems uninterested in hawkish arguments that he hasn’t finished the job. This week, administration officials have even tried to restart nuclear talks with Iran, unlikely as that may seem.
All this suggests that, despite bombing the nuclear sites, Trump has not embraced open-ended war as US foreign policy just yet. He rolled the dice on a risky military operation — but remained intent on avoiding a wider war. He supported Israel — but then, when he wanted the war to stop, called the Israelis out.
It also suggests that Trump, unlike the GOP’s more hawkish faction, is uninterested in seeking transformational regime change in Iran. Despite a Truth Social post on Sunday (after the strikes and before the ceasefire) in which Trump suggested “Regime change” might be a possibility, he didn’t go through with it. During his first presidential run, Trump trashed George W. Bush’s Iraq War as a debacle, and the collapse of Iran’s government would likely bring similar turmoil.
Rather, Trump would prefer to settle things at the negotiating table, and he continues to view military action like his strikes on Iran as another way to enhance his leverage there. If negotiations aren’t going the way he likes, however, dropping bombs is still a card he could play — or at least, that’s what he wants his negotiating partner to fear.
As I wrote before the US struck Iran, Trump has some wariness toward the hawks, but he’s not a dove or a peacenik: If he’s persuaded a military action will go well and make him look strong and successful, he’s happy to endorse it. It is clear, though, that he continues to be wary of more prolonged wars that could go poorly.
So for now at least, Trump appears to lack the appetite for a prolonged, costly, and painful war. He approved the Iran strikes because he thought Iran had been so weakened that he could get away with them, with limited consequences to Americans. But just as soon as he approved them, he hastened to wrap up the conflict.
