Washington, D.C: As the Israel-Iran conflict enters its sixth day, US President Donald Trump’s recent remark, “I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,” has sparked intense speculation about his administration’s intentions in the escalating Middle East crisis.

The statement, made in response to questions about potential US military involvement in Israel’s strikes on Iran, underscores a pattern of ambiguity that has left allies, adversaries, and domestic observers questioning Trump’s priorities — whether driven by opportunism, a desire for a diplomatic legacy, or a commitment to his “America First” principles.

A deal over principles?

Donald Trump’s push for a nuclear deal with Iran, despite Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, suggests a preference for a high-profile diplomatic win over unwavering support for Israel.

On June 15, Trump posted on Truth Social, urging Iran to “come to the table to make a deal before it’s too late,” noting that the “hardliners” he previously negotiated with are now dead.

This rhetoric, coupled with reports of backchannel communications with Tehran, raises the question: Has Trump maintained an open line to Iran to prematurely end the conflict? Such a move could undermine Israel’s objective of decisively neutralising Iran’s nuclear capabilities, particularly the heavily fortified Fordo enrichment facility, which remains a significant challenge for Israeli forces.

Israeli officials, including Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, have emphasised the need to destroy Fordo, a site buried 80 meters under rock and soil, protected by Iranian and Russian air defences. Israel lacks the US-made GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb capable of penetrating such fortifications.

The question looms: Will Trump authorise the transfer of this weapon to Israel to ensure the destruction of Fordo and Natanz, Iran’s primary nuclear sites, or will he prioritise negotiations to secure a deal with his signature?

Threats of regime change and assassination

Donald Trump’s rhetoric has also taken a provocative turn, with posts on Truth Social on June 17 threatening Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Claiming the US knows Khamenei’s location in an underground bunker in Tehran’s Lavizan neighborhood, Trump wrote, “He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.”

The post, coupled with a demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” has led to accusations from Iran’s UN mission of “cowardly” threats, raising concerns about whether Trump is openly advocating for regime change by targeting Iran’s top leader.

This stance appears to contradict his campaign promises to avoid costly Middle East entanglements, a cornerstone of his “America First” platform.

Defensive posturing or cosmetic moves?

The Pentagon’s deployment of warplanes and an aircraft carrier to the Middle East has been described as defensive, aimed at protecting the 40,000 US troops stationed in the region.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reiterated this position, stating, “We are postured defensively in the region to be strong, in pursuit of a peace deal.”

However, analysts question whether these moves are merely cosmetic, designed to project strength without committing to active support for Israel’s campaign to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.

The reluctance to engage offensively suggests Trump may be balancing domestic pressures from his MAGA base, which opposes foreign interventions, with calls from Republican hawks like Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, who advocate for regime change in Tehran.

A vision for a “Great Middle East”?

Trump’s June 13 Truth Social post, proclaiming his intent to “MAKE THE MIDDLE EAST GREAT AGAIN,” promised a resolution to regional conflicts through diplomacy.

Yet, 620 days into the Israel-Hamas war and 1,210 days into the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with the Israel-Iran war now claiming lives 224 in Iran and 24 in Israel, the vision of a peaceful Middle East remains elusive.

Trump’s assertion that “Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal” contrasts with his rejection of a ceasefire in favour of a “real end” to the conflict, which he has described as “better than a ceasefire.”

Analysts interpret this as a push for Iran’s capitulation, potentially through escalated military pressure rather than a negotiated settlement.

Defying MAGA or staying the course?

Donald Trump’s reluctance to commit US troops to the Middle East aligns with his campaign pledge to avoid sending “our brave soldiers to fight.”

However, his response to criticism from former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a vocal isolationist, suggests a shift.

Trump posted, “AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,” dismissing Carlson as “kooky.”

This raises the question: Will Donald Trump defy his MAGA base by deploying ground troops to support Israel, or will he adhere to domestic electoral pressures and limit US involvement to defensive measures and diplomatic overtures?

A peacemaker’s legacy in question

In his January 21, 2025, inaugural address, Trump declared his ambition to be a “peacemaker and unifier.” Yet, with three ongoing wars: Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine, and now Israel-Iran, his policy of US isolationism faces scrutiny.

The Israel-Hamas conflict has widened, and the Russia-Ukraine war has seen 13,134 civilian deaths, with no resolution in sight 152 days into Trump’s presidency. The addition of the Israel-Iran conflict, sparked by Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, challenges Trump’s claim to a legacy of peace.

As Donald Trump tap-dances through the Middle East’s geopolitical minefield, his stance swinging wildly from saber-rattling to deal-making to playing defence, has the world scratching its head.

Russia is getting nervous about Donald Trump’s trigger finger, and it shows.

Comments from deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov – warning the US against joining Israel’s military campaign – betray Moscow’s growing unease that it could be about to lose its closest Middle Eastern ally.

Russia has strong ties with Iran, which have deepened since the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine.

These were formalised in a strategic partnership pact the two countries signed at the start of the year.

Israel-Iran conflict – live updates

So, at first, Russia seemed to view its ally’s conflict with Israel as an opportunity to gain leverage. The Kremlin was quick to offer its services as a potential mediator.

If Vladimir Putin could persuade Tehran to back down and return to nuclear talks with Washington, he’d potentially have a favour to cash in with the White House over its military support for Ukraine.

But the offers to mediate fell on deaf ears.

And with Mr Trump threatening to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader, Moscow has switched to crisis mode – fearful of losing its second key regional ally in six months, after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria.

So, as well as Ryabkov, other senior figures have taken to the airwaves.

Russia’s spy chief Sergei Naryshkin called the situation “critical”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player 34:31 Israel-Iran conflict: Your questions answered

Read more:

Who has been targeted in Iran?

How the conflict escalated

Be the first to get Breaking News Install the Sky News app for free

And, according to ministry of foreign affairs spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, the world is “millimetres away from catastrophe” due to Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

It’s quite the spectacle – a country that’s been waging war on its neighbour for more than three years is now urging others to show military restraint.

That’s because US involvement poses serious consequences, not just for Iran, but for Russia too.

But none here would be drawn on what Moscow would do if Trump does bomb Tehran.

The notoriously outspoken Ms Zakharova was unusually tight-lipped on that particular question when I caught up with her at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

She wasn’t even able to say whether it would constitute an escalation, when the whole world can see that it would.

That’s because Russian officials are in an unfamiliar position – caught between a long-time ally and the country whose affections they’re courting. Hence the reluctance to directly criticise Trump.

I think they’re also waiting to see what Russia’s president will say, when he addresses news agencies later on Wednesday evening. So far, in public at least, he’s remained silent.

Your questions answered on the Israel-Iran conflict

4 hours ago Share Save Share Save

Getty Smoke rises from an Israeli attack on Shahran oil depot in Tehran on June 15

Iran and Israel continued to attack each other on Wednesday night, as US President Donald Trump said “I may do it, I may not do it” when asked whether the US would join the conflict. BBC experts and correspondents answer your questions about what is happening – and what could happen if the conflict escalates.

Why is Israel bombing Iran now?

Israel’s position on this is that it has no choice, that it believes in the last few months Iran was accelerating towards building a nuclear weapon, and that talks aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear programme were going nowhere, and that therefore this was the last resort. They have said they see an existential threat from Iran, and have argued that if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon it would use it because it has previously vowed to destroy the state of Israel. That Iran was close to building a nuclear weapon is not necessarily a view shared by the rest of the region, and it is not necessarily shared by the International Atomic Energy Agency, nor is it shared by the last open source report we have seen from US intelligence which did not say that Iran was about to produce a nuclear weapon. – Frank Gardner, security correspondent

Where can civilians in Iran go?

The Israel Defense Forces has issued some evacuation notices for certain parts of the capital Tehran, but these areas are extremely dense and highly populated. We’ve seen footage of huge traffic jams as enormous lines of cars try to escape Tehran towards the northern part of the country, which they consider safe. But there have been strikes on those areas as well. Because the targets have been so widespread by Israel, no area can be considered safe. In Tehran, the government announced they were opening the metro stations 24 hours a day so people can take shelter. Tehran has 10 million people, so you can imagine evacuating that number of people is not really possible. – Nafiseh Kohnavard, Middle East correspondent

Reuters Ten million people live in Tehran

If US enters the conflict, would Iran strike US targets?

There is certainly risk, and the consequences for the US are fairly significant. There are about 40,000 to 50,000 US troops at around 19 locations across the Middle East. There are US personnel based in Cyprus, and a US naval facility in Bahrain. It will all depend on how the US decides to get involved, and to what extent. – Mikey Kay, Security Brief host

Could Iran’s proxies support it in conflict with Israel?

I don’t think so – not any longer. Since Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, 2023, Israel has systematically taken down a lot of the first line of defence that Iran had. They have depleted Hamas in Gaza, they have largely depleted Hezbollah’s arsenal in Lebanon, and Syria is no longer an ally of Iran because Bashar al-Assad has been deposed, albeit not by Israel. The Houthis meanwhile are relatively constrained in Yemen. So they are not very well coordinated. – Frank Gardner, security correspondent

EPA An Israeli strike on Hezbollah in Lebanon earlier this month

Who is Iran’s leader and how much support does he have?

Iran’s supreme leader is Ali Khamenei. He is a religious figure, but he has much more power than Iran’s president. He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and is a decision-maker for the country, including negotiations with the US. But he does not command the support of all of Iran – his people are divided, and that division is deepening. Iran witnessed huge protests against the regime only two years ago. Women participated in those protests, demanding their rights and freedoms. But we cannot ignore that this regime still has its supporters – including in the armed forces which are connected to the regime. – Nafiseh Kohnavard, Middle East correspondent

Reuters Ali Khamenei

What happens if the regime is overthrown in Iran?

There’s no clear answer. We’ve seen over the last few years that there is no united opposition who could work together to replace the government. Right now there are different options, including Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the former Shah of Iran, who is now living abroad. He has supporters inside and outside Iran, but how many we can’t really say. He has opponents as well, including reformists inside. They may not want to go back to Iran’s monarchy that was overthrown nearly 40 years ago. So it’s not clear if there is one replacement. – Nafiseh Kohnavard, Middle East correspondent

Where is Fordo and what is it?

Fordo is about 200km (124 miles) south of Tehran and is one of two critical enrichment facilities Iran has. It has been built into a mountain for its protection. And it is basically one of the key enrichment facilities that Iran has been using to boost its enriched uranium stockpile. Fordo has been struck by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) already. However, it is believed the attacks were going after Iran’s surface-to-air missiles and air defence capabilities around it, in order to make it more vulnerable. – Mikey Kay, Security Brief host

Maxar Fordo is buried deep beneath a mountain

How close is Iran to getting a nuclear bomb?

The only people who know for certain whether or not Iran was working towards building a nuclear bomb are Iran’s most trusted nuclear scientists, the inner core of security officials and the supreme leader himself. The rest is conjecture. But the alarm was raised earlier this month when the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, found Iran to be in breach of its non-proliferation obligations, for the first time in nearly 20 years. Iran has amassed around 400kg of uranium enriched to 60%, well beyond the level needed for civil nuclear purposes. The UN agency said Iran had failed to cooperate fully and that it was unable to verify there had been no diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons. That is not the same though, as stating Iran was racing towards building a bomb. The Israeli military said last week that “over the past few months intelligence has shown that Iran is closer than ever to obtaining a nuclear weapon”. But whose intelligence? Not apparently, its closest ally’s. In March, the US director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, told Congress that “while Iran had an unprecedented stockpile of weapons-grade uranium, it did not appear to be building a nuclear weapon”. Iran, meanwhile, has always maintained that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. – Frank Gardner, security correspondent

Does Israel have nuclear weapons?

Israel-Iran conflict: Brutal WW3 reality of strikes and what they mean for UK

As the world awaits a US decision on whether to join Israel’s strikes on Iran and with Supreme Leader dodging the onslaught, many are left wondering if it will it lead to a much bigger conflict. Trump had demanded Iran’s “immediate surrender” as he hinted there could be plans to assassinate the country’s national and spiritual patriarch.

But why is America so involved in Israel’s conflicts? Here, the Mirror answers five key questions on the escalating Israel-Iran conflict, its origins and causes and what any Middle East crisis could mean for the wider world. Here’s what you need to know:

Image: AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images)

Q: Why has this missile exchange between Israel and Iran erupted?

A: There has been tension between the two since the 1979 Iran Revolution, the current government does not recognise Israel as a State and has called for its destruction.

It financed and supplied weapons and training to Gazan Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis, using them as proxies against Israel but in the meantime it is said by Israel to be trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

This became urgent as Israeli PM Netanyahu claimed this was imminent, as in possibly within months. He saw this as an opportunity to hit Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with Hezbollah and Hamas now crippled whilst the Houthis are also badly hit by Israeli strikes. Conveniently this exchange has diverted attention from Israel’s war in Gaza.

Image: AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images)

Trump’s Iran dilemma exposes bitter split in president’s circle

3 hours ago Share Save Bernd Debusmann Jr & Max Matza BBC News Share Save

Getty Images

The dilemma of whether the US should join Israel in attacking Iran, or stay out of the offensive altogether, has exposed divisions among US President Donald Trump’s supporters. “I may do it, I may not do it,” the Republican president said on Wednesday whether the US would join the conflict by targeting Iranian nuclear sites. Trump often railed against “stupid endless wars” in the Middle East on the campaign trail, but has also maintained that Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon”. The possibility that he might draw the US into another foreign entanglement has pitted the isolationist and hawkish wings of his party bitterly against one another.

Among those that have expressed doubt about Iran’s nuclear plans are Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who in March testified before Congress that while Iran’s enriched uranium was at an all-time high, experts did not believe it was working on a nuclear weapon. On 10 June – just three days before Israeli strikes on Iran began – Gabbard also posted a video in which she warned that “political elite and warmongers” were “carelessly fomenting fear and tensions” that risked putting the world “on the brink of nuclear annihilation”. Gabbard’s video and prior comments reportedly opened a rift between her and Trump, who US news outlet Politico reported “became incensed” at the video.

Watch: Protect the world or avoid war? Americans divided on Iran conflict

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters when asked about her earlier comments before Congress. “I think they were very close to having a weapon.” She later accused the media of taking her comments out of context, telling CNN that she was on “the same page” as Trump. Gabbard was not alone among Republicans in criticising potential US involvement in the conflict. On Tuesday, conservative Republican congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky sided with Democrats to introduce a bill that would block Trump from engaging US forces in “unauthorised hostilities” with Iran without congressional approval. “This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution,” Massie posted on X. Several proponents of Trump’s “America First” doctrine pointed out that he vowed to keep the US out of “forever wars” such as those that led to the deaths of thousands of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Follow live updates on this story

Russia fears another loss in Middle East from Iran’s conflict with Israel

Watch: BBC at the site of Iranian attack in Israel

G7 leaders urge ‘de-escalation’ but stop short of calling for Israel-Iran ceasefire Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has called for the US to stay out of the conflict with Iran. On his podcast, he lambasted Republican “warmongers”, provoking a rebuke from Trump, who called Carlson “kooky”. Georgia congresswoman and Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene leapt to Carlson’s defence in a highly unusual break with the president. She said anyone who supported such an intervention was not “America First”. The tensions exploded into a shouting match on Tuesday during an interview between Carlson and hawkish Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz became defensive when asked if he knew the population and ethnic mix of Iran. Carlson said: “You’re a senator who’s calling for the overthrow of the government and you don’t know anything about the country!” Cruz retorted: “No, you don’t know anything about the country!” Steve Bannon, Trump’s former political strategist, argued on Carlson’s podcast that allowing the “deep state” to drive the US into a war with Iran would “blow up” the coalition of Trump supporters. “If we get sucked into this war, which inexorably looks like it’s going to happen on the combat side, it’s going to not just blow up the coalition, it’s also going to thwart the most important thing, which is the deportation of the illegal alien invaders who are here,” he said. On Wednesday, however, Bannon seemed to slightly soften his tone, telling attendees at a Christian Science Monitor event that the MAGA wing of his supporters would trust his judgement if he decided to commit US forces to the conflict. “Maybe we hate it but you know, we’ll get on board.” he said. Another conservative political commentator, Charlie Kirk – who describes himself as closer to the “isolationist” side of the debate – said on X that Trump is “pragmatic” and values “common sense”. “I don’t know if President Trump will choose to involve America against Iran,” Kirk wrote. “But he is a man I trust to be making that decision.”

What do we know about the Fordo nuclear site?