Trump’s two-week window on Iran is, if real, a dangerous mistake

Hesitation helps no one and risks turning a manageable crisis into a disaster

Trump’s announcement that he might wait two weeks before deciding on whether to join the Israel-Iran war risks being a very dangerous mistake. Unless this is a calculated misdirection aimed at maintaining the element of surprise, and keeping the Iranians off-guard, it looks like a display of weakness and indecision that gambles with Israeli and Iranian lives.

Trump might reasonably be torn between the emerging two wings of his MAGA movement — interventionists like Ted Cruz versus isolationists like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon (who seem more genuinely MAGA but are also foreign implants in the GOP). Either way, Trump has already clarified his baseline position: In the days after Israel launched successful strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure he moved from implausible deniability to claiming that “we” control Iran’s skies and boasting that Tehran paid for ignoring his 60-day deadline, then tweeting a demand for “unconditional surrender.”

All that makes the US already a participant in the war, at least in the eyes of Tehran, and the question is what to do next. The worst answer is nothing – because that means Israel cannot stop, even if – absent a US entry – it should.

Israel’s achievements in the opening phase of the war against Iran have been substantial. Without US participation, Israel has successfully executed precision strikes deep inside Iranian territory, reportedly disabling key elements of the country’s nuclear infrastructure at Natanz and Isfahan. These strikes exposed the previous disabling by Israel of Iran’s air defenses, demonstrating extraordinary operational reach and tactical surprise. Israel has also systematically degraded Iran’s strategic capabilities by assassinating key military leaders and nuclear scientists.

This not only sent a clear deterrent message but has also put Iran’s regime on the defensive, exposing vulnerabilities and shaking public confidence. Tehran’s request for renewed negotiations speaks volumes; Israel has already achieved in a matter of days what years of sanctions and diplomacy failed to do: forcing the regime to recalculate.

But Israel cannot destroy the main enrichment facility in Fordow, which is deep underground, without a risky landing of commandos on the ground. And only the United States has the bunker-busting capability of destroying the facility from the air. That is what Trump is supposedly mulling.

If the aim is indeed to strike Fordow, then it is best done soon. The chances of success are very high, alongside the risks of Iranian retaliation – such as blocking the Straits of Hormuz and causing a global oil crisis, or attacking American bases in the region. But success would enable a declaration of victory and of mission – destroying the nuclear program – accomplished.

If there is no intention to strike, then there is an excellent option in pausing the war to test Iran’s overtures for renewed talks — but to do so with toughness and a clear deadline, and a visible willingness to return to war if necessary. Iran is clearly weakened and its regime degraded and rattled. Its proxy militias around the region have been sidelined. There is now a narrow window to try for a resolution that meets Western objectives — without immediate military escalation.

This moment could be used to demand dismantling of Fordow, cessation of uranium enrichment anywhere near weapons-grade, and a halt to Iran’s funding of militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and the Palestinian areas. If talks fail, military action remains on the table — and is even more justifiable. But if diplomacy succeeds, a greater goal will have been achieved at lower cost. There is no cost to a short, firm diplomatic initiative — particularly if it comes with a declared right to resume the war.

The current posturing accomplishes nothing strategically and risks squandering the element of surprise. It also changes the risk equation – because Israel has struck most of what it can strike, while each passing day continues to bring a chance of a mass casualty event.

About five percent of Iran’s rockets are getting through the defenses of Israel and its regional and Western allies – and if one killed many people, Israel might feel compelled to escalate, this time for political reasons resulting from a random occurrence. Too much of history has played out that way.

The option of an attack is not indefensible, even if some Americans hear echoes of 2003 in it. Then, too, a US president promised precision and deterrence, in that case in Iraq, and delivered chaos and quagmire.

But the parallels are more psychological than substantive. There is no talk of a US invasion – and on the other hand unlike Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program is real and confirmed by international monitors. It has enriched uranium to near weapons-grade and has stonewalled inspectors.

This crisis, in a way, is of Trump’s own making. His 2018 decision to exit the Iran nuclear deal, under pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Washington hardliners, unraveled a functioning framework. At the time, Iran was in compliance. Enrichment was capped. Inspections were ongoing. International unity was strong. The deal wasn’t perfect – it allowed Iran to continue its missile program and fund regional militias – but it prevented a nuclear weapon. Abandoning it without a replacement was an idiotic move that brought on today’s crisis.

Now Trump faces the results of that gamble. And the tragedy is that the outcome rests with three deeply flawed men: Trump himself, an impulsive populist governed more by performance than policy; Netanyahu, a criminal defendant who has repeatedly prioritized personal survival over national interest; and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, a repressive theocrat who has spent decades exporting instability.

Meanwhile, for people in the region, the danger is real and immediate. In Tel Aviv, families take shelter under missile barrages, and are in danger every day and night. Two more weeks of this, for them, is an infuriating dither.