Trump’s gambling Iran is risky

Donald Trump, the president who returned to the White House in January, promised to be a “peacemaker”, a dramatic step to include the United States in the fraught conflict between Iran and Israel.

Away from bringing peace to the Middle East since he took office, Trump is now heading an area on the brink of the greatest war – a battle in which America is an active participant.

In a televised speech to the nation from the White House, a little more than two hours after it was announced on social media that the American forces hit three nuclear sites in Iran, the US president said the operation was “amazing success.”

He expressed his hope that his movement will open the door to a permanent peace, as Iran no longer has the ability to become a nuclear power.

Iran said that there was only slight damage to its highly fortified nuclear location. The time will tell any side right.

Trump warned of Vice President GD Verse, Foreign Minister Marco Rubio and Defense Minister Beit Higseth, Iran that if they did not give up their nuclear program, they will face future attacks “much worse and easier.”

Trump said that there were “many remaining goals”, and the United States would pursue “speed, accuracy and skill.”

Despite Bravado, the continuous US military participation in Iran may be the worst scenario of the United States, the region and the world.

United Nations Secretary -General Antonio Guterres warned of a “spiral of chaos” that could result from the American decision to escalate the conflict, noting that the Middle East was already “on the edge of the abyss.”

If Iran shares – as Ayatollah Ali Khouni warns in the event of an American attack – the American side may feel that it is forced to respond.

Earlier in Trump’s speech this week, Iran had to “surrender without restriction or condition” put the president in a position that would be difficult to retreat. Iran, with its own threats, had supported itself in a similar angle.

This is how wars begin – and how they can expand beyond control, and imagination, from those concerned.

On Thursday, Donald Trump gave the Iranians a two -week deadline, but it turned out that this was much shorter than expected – just two days. On Saturday night, the American president announced that he had acted.

Was the two weeks to negotiate deception? An attempt to attract the Iranians to a false feeling of security this week? Or was the negotiations behind the scenes led by the collapse of the peacemaker appointed to Trump Steve and Witkev?

In the wake of the strikes directly, much is not known. But in his position on social media and in his televised speech, Trump tried to open the door for peace.

This may be optimistic expectations. While the Israelis made great efforts to insult the Iranian military capabilities, Ayatollah still has weapons at his disposal.

Things can become messy quickly.

Now the waiting game begins. How will Iran respond to the attacks on three of its sites, including Fordo, which is seen as the crown jewel for its nuclear program?

Trump seems to be hoping that the American strikes will force Iran to make greater concessions at the negotiating table, but it seems unlikely that the nation is unwilling to speak while the Israeli attack was more inclined when US bombs also fell.

While Trump seemed to mean that the American attack was a unique and successful event, if this is not the case, the pressure on the strike again will grow – or that the president would have occupied a serious political threat to the minimum military gains.

This danger includes local political concerns, as well as international security issues.

The possibility of an American attack on Iran has already pushed sharp criticism not only from Democrats but also from the Trump “first” movement.

The unusual decision may be to give his national speech, which is surrounded by three of his close advisers, an attempt to show unity inside his party.

Vans was, in particular, an explicit preacher of a more restricted American foreign policy, and he recently moved to social media to clarify that Trump is still a non -pillar that should get doubt by his supporters.

If this attack is one time, Trump may be able to distinguish the sections within its base. But if the United States is withdrawn to a greater conflict, the president may have an uprising with his ranks.

On Saturday’s attack was an aggressive step for a president, Tabah, not to start any new wars during his first presidential term, which was regularly against the wires who attracted the country to foreign conflicts over the campaign’s path last year.

Trump moved him. Where he goes from here not completely in his control.