On Friday, President Trump told Axios that he wanted to use Israel’s war with Iran to get the Islamist regimer back to the negotiating table but from a weaker position.

“I couldn’t get them to a deal in 60 days, Trump told Barak Ravid. “They were close, they should have done it. Maybe now it will happen.”

Indeed, many political commentators have suggested that the negotiations were a coordinated and premeditated effort to bring about a political victory for the US president at the expense of the Iranian regime.

Conservative political pundit  Ben Shapiro wrote an article in The Daily Wire on Friday, suggesting that Israel’s attack on Iran was the result of close coordination between US President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in a sophisticated political ploy Shapiro described as “4D Chess”. Shapiro was not alone in this assessment, as other political commentators noted that the Israeli attack, which wiped out Iran’s nuclear facilities, air defenses, and military power structure, was timed to suit US interests perfectly. 

The Art of Strategic Deception

President Trump’s approach to Iran represents a masterclass in strategic thinking that has culminated in what can only be described as 4D chess. While critics across the political spectrum questioned his apparent willingness to negotiate with Iran, Trump was never genuinely pursuing a return to the failed JCPOA framework that he had consistently condemned as the worst deal in American history. Instead, the President was executing a sophisticated strategy that would ultimately allow Israel to neutralize Iran’s nuclear capabilities while keeping American forces entirely out of harm’s way.

The brilliance of Trump’s approach becomes evident when examining the coordination between the United States and Israel throughout this operation. When asked by the Wall Street Journal whether Israel had given him advance notice of their strikes, Trump’s response was revealing: “Heads-up? It wasn’t a heads-up. It was, ‘We know what’s going on.'” This suggests a level of coordination far beyond simple consultation, indicating that the United States was not merely informed about Israeli operations but was actively involved in their planning and execution.

The apparent negotiations led by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, served a crucial strategic purpose in this elaborate plan. Rather than genuine diplomatic outreach, these talks appear to have been part of a sophisticated disinformation campaign designed to lull Iran into a false sense of security. By maintaining the facade of potential negotiations, the administration successfully kept Iranian leadership off guard while Israel prepared for its devastating strikes.

Peace Through Strength in Action

Trump’s public statements throughout this period demonstrate the classic “peace through strength” doctrine that has defined his foreign policy approach. His warnings to Iran were both explicit and prophetic. In his initial statement, Trump declared that he had given Iran “chance after chance to make a deal,” warning them that rejection would result in consequences “much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told.” He emphasized America’s superior military technology and Israel’s access to and proficiency with these weapons systems.

The President’s ultimatum was clear and time-bound. Two months before Israel’s strikes, Trump had given Iran a 60-day deadline to reach an agreement. When that deadline passed without Iranian compliance, the consequences were swift and devastating. Trump’s follow-up statement was unambiguous: “Two months ago I gave Iran a 60 day ultimatum to ‘make a deal.’ They should have done it! Today is day 61. I told them what to do, but they just couldn’t get there.”

This approach exemplifies Trump’s foreign policy philosophy of providing clear choices to adversaries while maintaining the credible threat of overwhelming force. Iran was given every opportunity to avoid conflict through diplomatic means, but their intransigence led to the inevitable military consequences that Trump had explicitly warned about.

Strategic Benefits for American Interests

The Israeli operation against Iran serves multiple crucial American strategic interests while requiring no direct US military involvement. Most importantly, it addresses the existential threat of Iranian nuclear weapons development without committing American troops to another Middle Eastern conflict. Trump’s base, weary of endless wars, can support this outcome because it achieves vital national security objectives through allied capabilities rather than American casualties.

The operation also demonstrates the effectiveness of Trump’s approach to alliance management. Rather than micromanaging Israeli decision-making as previous administrations had done, Trump provided Israel with the strategic space and advanced weaponry necessary to act independently in America’s shared interests. This model of alliance partnership maximizes results while minimizing direct American involvement and risk.

Furthermore, the strikes serve broader American strategic objectives in the region. By neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program and degrading their military capabilities, the operation removes a major threat to regional stability and American interests. Iran’s position as a state sponsor of terrorism and regional destabilizer has been significantly weakened, benefiting American allies throughout the Middle East.

The Hazony Analysis: Deception and Coordination

H.A. Hazony’s analysis reveals the sophisticated nature of the coordination between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. According to Hazony, the apparent tensions and disagreements between the two leaders were entirely orchestrated theater designed to deceive both domestic audiences and Iranian intelligence. The public disputes over Gaza policy, the controversy surrounding Qatari aircraft, and the supposed friction between the administrations were all carefully choreographed elements of a broader deception campaign.

This level of strategic deception required remarkable discipline from both leaders. Israeli media reported that Netanyahu had lost Trump’s support, while American isolationists celebrated what they perceived as reduced Israeli influence. Pro-Israel voices expressed genuine concern about the apparent deterioration in US-Israel relations. Meanwhile, Iranian leadership was led to believe that the strong US-Israel alliance had been weakened, reducing their assessment of potential threats.

The operational success of this deception is evident in the tactical surprise achieved by Israeli forces. Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile production centers, and military leadership were caught completely off-guard. The strikes eliminated 20 military officers and 9 top nuclear scientists, while devastating Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and ballistic missile capabilities. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps headquarters was struck, and subsequent attacks destroyed Iranian air force facilities and aircraft.

Iran’s Strategic Miscalculation

Hazony’s analysis illuminates why Iran was never genuinely interested in nuclear negotiations, making Trump’s strategic approach the only viable option. Iran faces an aging population, internal ethnic tensions, economic collapse, and severe water shortages. Meanwhile, Israel continues to grow stronger economically, demographically, and militarily. This divergent trajectory meant that Iran’s window for regional dominance was rapidly closing.

As an expansionist power, Iran could not accept a nuclear deal because doing so would effectively end their hopes for regional hegemony. Without nuclear weapons, Iran lacks the capability to counter Israel’s growing strength and would face internal revolution within a generation. The October 7th attacks were Iran’s attempt to prevent an Israel-Saudi alliance and wound Israel before it became too powerful to challenge.

However, the strategy backfired catastrophically. Instead of weakening Israel, the conflict destroyed Iran’s Syrian proxy network and decimated their forces in Lebanon and Gaza. Iran’s direct missile attacks proved ineffective, while Israeli retaliation left Iran defenseless. The nuclear program represented Iran’s final card, and their unwillingness to relinquish it made military action inevitable.

The Advantages of Plausible Deniability

Trump’s approach of maintaining plausible deniability while supporting Israeli operations serves multiple strategic purposes. It allows the United States to achieve critical national security objectives without direct military involvement, reducing the risk of American casualties and avoiding another unpopular Middle Eastern war. The model also provides flexibility in responding to outcomes, allowing Trump to claim credit for success while maintaining distance from any potential complications.

Secretary of State Rubio’s quick distancing of US involvement in the immediate aftermath of the strikes exemplifies this approach. By allowing Israel to demonstrate its capabilities independently, the administration minimizes the risk of retaliation against American assets while maintaining the option of increased involvement if necessary. This strategy recognizes that the United States has larger strategic concerns in the South China Sea while ensuring that Iranian nuclear threats are neutralized with minimal American resource commitment.

The success of Israel’s operations against Iran represents a vindication of Trump’s foreign policy approach and his understanding of how to leverage allied capabilities in service of American interests. Through strategic patience, careful coordination, and masterful deception, Trump has achieved a outcome that serves American national security while demonstrating the continued strength of the US-Israel alliance. The operation stands as a testament to what can be accomplished when allies are empowered to act decisively in their shared interests, guided by clear American leadership and strategic vision.