President Donald Trump is confronting a rapidly deteriorating international crisis as the conflict between Israel and Iran intensifies, raising fresh questions about whether he remains in command of US foreign policy or is increasingly being pulled by events and internal resistance.
In recent weeks, Israel launched a high-profile military strike on Iranian territory, reportedly targeting nuclear and command infrastructure. Iran responded days later with a large-scale missile and drone counter-attack on Israeli military installations and energy sites, prompting fears of a regional war. The tit-for-tat escalation has alarmed US allies and thrown the Trump administration into a foreign policy storm just months into his return to the White House.
Trump, who campaigned on reasserting American strength and deterring adversaries through unpredictability, now faces the test of converting that posture into coherent strategy. While he quickly pledged “ironclad” support for Israel and moved additional naval assets into the eastern Mediterranean, criticism is mounting—both abroad and at home—that his policy is reactive, erratic, and increasingly out of step with US diplomatic institutions.
Inside Washington, friction is growing between the White House and elements of the national security establishment. Senior Pentagon officials, including those with combat experience in the region, are reported to have advised against further entanglement in the Middle East without a clear endgame. Some have warned privately that Trump’s bellicose rhetoric could draw the US into a broader confrontation with Iran and its regional allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and armed militias in Iraq and Syria.
Despite these cautions, Trump has pushed ahead with escalating language, reportedly instructing defence planners to prepare “devastating options” should Iran strike again. However, his authority has been questioned by congressional leaders, including some Republicans, who are calling for legislative oversight of any military authorisation. Senate Intelligence Committee members have openly stated that they have not been adequately briefed.
Internationally, America’s NATO partners have expressed alarm at the speed of escalation and a lack of coordinated US-European response. France and Germany have called emergency diplomatic summits, appealing for de-escalation, while Britain has offered logistical support to Israel but stopped short of endorsing further strikes. European leaders are increasingly concerned that Trump’s preference for bilateral showdowns over multilateral diplomacy is weakening Western unity at a dangerous moment.
The situation also threatens to overshadow Trump’s efforts to refocus US foreign policy on competition with China and trade rebalancing. With the Indo-Pacific strategy now relegated behind Middle East headlines, Beijing is taking the opportunity to deepen ties with Gulf states, presenting itself as a neutral mediator and energy partner. Trump’s attempts to reimpose trade pressure on China have been eclipsed by the urgency of the Israeli-Iranian standoff.
In domestic political terms, Trump’s handling of the crisis may carry risks with both his base and the broader electorate. While many conservative voters back his support for Israel, war fatigue and economic uncertainty are growing issues. Polls show declining confidence in Trump’s ability to manage global crises without provoking wider conflict. Independents, in particular, appear wary of another drawn-out military entanglement.
Trump’s inner circle is also fractured. Some former advisers from his first term, like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, have criticised the administration’s apparent lack of a diplomatic back-channel. Meanwhile, National Security Adviser Richard Grenell has taken a more hawkish stance, reportedly pushing for pre-emptive cyberstrikes on Iranian assets—moves that have not been uniformly backed within the intelligence community.
As tensions mount, the central question is no longer whether Trump sets the tone of US foreign policy—he clearly does—but whether the machinery of government is still following his lead. The fog of conflict in the Middle East, rising global instability, and internal disagreements are testing the very premise of his second-term leadership. In a world moving faster than any single presidency, control is proving harder to hold onto than ever.
newshub finance
Recent Comments