PRESIDENT Donald Trump has an ace up his sleeve, and that is, his unpredictability. Like a seasoned poker player, he has always placed his cards close to his chest, making both his detractors and allies guess his every move.
It is this unpredictability that has made the businessman-turned-head of state an enigma to the international community. Every statement that the President dishes out must be carefully parsed for their undertones lest they be misinterpreted or taken out of context.
Take the U.S. government’s involvement in the Israel and Iran war as an example. Interviewed by the media, President Trump said he was giving himself about two weeks to decide what course of action to take. Like a father, he wanted his children to stop fighting.
World leaders heaved a sigh of relief as they believed that President Trump had the power to end the war. The casualty count in Israel and Iran continued to rise as whole city blocks were leveled to the ground due to the barrage of ballistic missiles fired by both sides.
The two-week window mentioned by President Trump would give both parties enough time to recalibrate their positions and negotiate a truce although Israel seemed bent on realizing its goal of destroying Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.
Then on June 21, U.S. B-2 stealth fighters dropped more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs on the Iranian nuclear enrichment facility in Fordow, causing major damage to the country’s capability to produce a nuclear warhead.
In a televised press conference at the White House, President Trump reported that the U.S. had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear ambitions, destroying key components of the nation’s nuclear program and setting it back by several years.
However, the President’s statement did not align with the initial findings of a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report that the U.S. bombing run may not have done serious damage to Iran’s nuclear sites and pushed back its nuclear program by just a few months.
The DIA’s findings had upset the President as it seemed to cast a shadow of doubt not only on the capability of the U.S. military to accomplish its task, but also on the accuracy of his pronouncement as well as his credibility as a leader.
Notwithstanding the exact physical damage the U.S. bombs had done on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, President Trump wanted to send a strong message that America will not hesitate to use the full might of its military arsenal if the conditions warrant it.
By this time, the warring parties already knew that it would not be wise to be at the receiving end of the U.S. President’s ire and it would be best for them to heed his call to put an end to the so-called “12-day war.”
And so, Israel and Iran grudgingly agreed to a temporary truce, a ceasefire that continues to hold up to this day. Had it not been for President Trump using the “f” word on national TV, the two nations would have resumed their missile attacks.
President Trump has received a lot of flak for his decision to support Israel President Benjamin Netanyahu’s war on Iran, which, according to experts, is an underhanded attempt of asserting and expanding his country’s sphere of influence in the Middle East.
Regardless of whether he was pushed into a corner by his Israeli counterpart, the U.S. President is not given much credit for halting the war, which could have spread across the Middle East and brought the world closer to the brink of World War III.
What many feared was the possible involvement of Russia and China, which are known to be allies of Iran. If the two nations entered into the fray, the situation could have quickly escalated and spiraled out of control. Fortunately, this did not happen.
Many have underestimated President Trump’s ability to make the right call, particularly during crisis situations. But given all possible scenarios, he believed that a strategic strike on Iran was the only way to force a temporary truce.
It is easy to criticize the American leader for unilaterally deciding to launch the attack on Iranian soil, especially without the backing of its North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) allies, who perhaps preferred a more calibrated response.
Patience, however, is not exactly among President Trump’s strengths then as a business person and now, as a leader. He is, first and foremost, a realist and pragmatist who believes that the U.S. had to take decisive action.
It is this same bluntness that enabled the U.S. President to finally convince NATO member-nations to earmark 5% of their GDPs to defense spending by 2035, which would amount to $700 billion in collective spending if fully realized.
Iran, after all, has remained a significant security threat to its Middle East neighbors and beyond. It has vowed to carry out the destruction of the state of Israel by supporting terror groups such as the Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis.
Although the U.S. has officially pulled out from Afghanistan and Iraq, it still maintains a strategic presence in the Middle East. Given its ironclad alliance with Israel, there is no doubt that America will come to its defense if there is a significant threat to the Israelis.
At this point, it is too early to tell how long the ceasefire between Israel and Iran will remain in force. But given how many lives have been lost, the bloodshed must stop. America’s allies have also realized that the world still needs the presence of a global cop who will broker peace.
So far, only the U.S. has stepped up to the plate. And perhaps, despite what his critics say, President Trump might get the Nobel Peace Prize he believes he deserves.
