Behind the rhetoric, Israel’s offensive has revealed just how little control the US now wields
If the Academy handed out Oscars for political theater, Donald Trump would be a shoo-in for the 2025 award for Worst Performance in a Leading Role. His latest remarks are less about statesmanship and more about saving face as global events spin far beyond the grasp of American diplomacy. And the harder he tries to project himself as a dealmaker pulling strings behind the scenes, the clearer it becomes: Western dominance is cracking, and Washington is reacting more on impulse than strategy.
The latest flashpoint – the 2025 escalation between Israel and Iran – has exposed the crumbling illusion of American leadership. Despite Trump’s claim that he “convinced” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to strike Iran, the facts tell a different story. Netanyahu brushed off the advice and launched a sweeping assault on Iranian targets – not just military, but symbolic. In one bold move, he derailed already fragile nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran, revealing exactly who sets the agenda in the region now.
Faced with this reality, US leaders had two choices: admit their influence over Israel had faded, or publicly support the strikes and cling to the image of leadership – even if it meant further undermining their credibility as a neutral arbiter. Unsurprisingly, they chose the latter. Backing Israel at the expense of diplomacy with Iran has become business as usual. Washington isn’t conducting the symphony anymore; it’s trying to stay in rhythm while the conductor’s baton is in someone else’s hand.
So when Trump talks about having “leverage” over Israel, it sounds more like community theater than statesmanship. Even he doesn’t seem to believe the part he’s playing. In 2025, once again, the United States isn’t leading the charge – it’s being dragged along.
And the more American leaders insist everything’s fine, the more obvious it becomes: the age of Western supremacy is fading out, in a blaze of theatrical flair that rivals Trump’s own off-script improvisations.
A close look at Trump’s statements – and those from his administration – in the wake of Israel’s strike on Iran reveals a political paradox: while the US officially opposed escalation, it did nothing to stop it. Why? Because the political cost at home was too high. In an election year, Trump couldn’t risk a fight with one of the GOP’s most reliable bases: pro-Israel voters and the powerful lobbying machine behind them.
Trump tried to play it both ways. On one hand, he said, “It wasn’t a surprise to me,” and claimed he neither endorsed nor blocked the strike. But just days earlier, he boasted: “I talked to Bibi. He promised not to do anything drastic. We held him back.”
That’s a crucial detail. At least on the surface, the Trump White House wanted to avoid escalation. But once the missiles flew, Trump pivoted hard:
“Israel has the right to defend itself.”
“The US wasn’t involved in the operation.”
“But if Iran hits us, we’ll hit back harder than ever.”
This about-face reveals just how little influence Washington had. Netanyahu played the hand he wanted – defying US interests, derailing diplomacy, and still compelling American support. Warnings from Washington didn’t even register.
Caught flat-footed, Trump scrambled to regain control with vague reassurances:
“Iran might still get a second chance.”
“We’re open to talks.”
“Iranian officials are calling me. They want to talk.”
These weren’t policy statements. They were PR – a bid to dodge blame for a failed containment strategy. His line that “I gave Iran a chance, but they didn’t take it” is less a fact and more a way to recast himself as the peacemaker – the guy who ended tensions between India and Pakistan and now promises to “make the Middle East great again.”
Is this genuine diplomacy? Or a carefully crafted performance aimed at domestic audiences – and international ones, too? Trump even welcomed Vladimir Putin as a potential mediator: “He’s ready. He called me. We had a long talk.”
By doing so, he tried to recast the situation from an American failure to a global problem that needs collective resolution – conveniently shifting the spotlight away from US accountability.
And while Trump played diplomat, Axios reported that Israel had actively lobbied for US participation in the strikes, and the Wall Street Journal revealed that Trump had promised Netanyahu he wouldn’t stand in the way. All signs point to this: any restraint Washington projected was a smokescreen for its inability – or unwillingness – to rein in its closest Middle Eastern ally.
In the end, Israel got what it wanted. The US got sidelined. And Iran got a loud-and-clear message: America isn’t calling the shots. Netanyahu exploited the weaknesses baked into the US political system – proving once again that alliances don’t equal parity. And while Trump talks of giving Iran another chance, the truth is this: Washington is now playing by rules written in Jerusalem.
What Comes Next?
The current Israel-Iran confrontation has sparked alarm worldwide. But while tensions are high and missiles have flown, the chances of full-scale war still appear slim. Tehran, despite its fiery rhetoric, has shown restraint. It seems to be holding out for a return to diplomacy – and possibly a new round of talks with Washington.
The US, too, is in no mood for another drawn-out Middle East war. With its strategic focus shifting elsewhere and voters tired of endless foreign entanglements, Washington is eager to avoid getting pulled into something deeper. A slow, uneasy de-escalation looks like the most plausible outcome – the only question is how long that will take.
Make no mistake: Israel’s strikes inflicted heavy damage – particularly on the IRGC’s infrastructure and the supply networks for Iran-backed forces in Syria and Lebanon. But Iran’s retaliation – a massive drone and missile barrage on Israeli territory – was a shock to the Israeli public. It caused serious destruction and considerable casualties, raising questions about Netanyahu’s gamble.
Inside Iran, the regime faces mounting economic pressure and growing public frustration. Yet there are no signs of collapse. The leadership remains intact, held together by tight control and elite loyalty. A new deal with the US could offer much-needed economic relief, giving leverage to more pragmatic voices in Tehran that favor engagement over confrontation.
As for Israel, the longer-term political fallout is still unclear. Netanyahu may have boosted his image as a tough, decisive leader – but if talks between Washington and Tehran resume and produce even a temporary agreement, Israel could find itself isolated.
Netanyahu’s open friction with the Biden administration over Gaza and Iran may come back to haunt him. If diplomacy moves forward without Israel, it could leave him out in the cold – and facing heat from both domestic critics and international partners.
Meanwhile, regional powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are stepping up. They’ve launched a flurry of diplomatic efforts – including quiet lobbying in Washington – to further rein in Israeli escalation. These countries have no interest in another war. They’re worried that if things spiral, US bases and assets across the region – from Iraq to the Gulf – could become targets. That would bring serious security risks and economic disruption, just as these nations are trying to push forward with growth and reform.
Their message is clear: further chaos in the Middle East is not an option. These states are now emerging as key voices for de-escalation – working to steer the crisis back to the negotiating table.
Final thought
Despite the intensity of the current standoff, the likeliest path forward remains a tense but managed de-escalation. Neither Iran nor the US wants a war. Israel, meanwhile, is walking a tightrope – trying to look strong while navigating a shrinking space for unilateral action. That leaves a narrow window for diplomacy. The real question is: when will the politics – in all three capitals – catch up with the need for a deal?
