Prologue: A Policy Shift Driven by Multiple Converging Factors
On June 21, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, marking a historic turning point as America directly joined the Israel-Iran war. This decision resulted from multiple complex and interrelated factors: the failure of Erdoğan’s mediation efforts, Netanyahu’s consistent military pressure, Trump’s diplomatic disappointment, and the dysfunction of Iran’s political system.
Based on available facts, this analysis objectively examines how these factors ultimately led to military interventionThis analysis objectively examines how these factors ultimately led to military intervention, based on available facts.
Chapter 1: Trump Administration’s Policy Contradictions and Evolution
Section 1: Initial Diplomatic Emphasis
Since April 2025, the Trump administration had actively pursued nuclear negotiations with Iran. In a meeting with Netanyahu on April 7, Trump openly revealed the existence of direct nuclear talks and expressed hope for a diplomatic solution. At this time, Trump was seeking a solution that would satisfy both his pursuit of a “peacemaker” legacy and his MAGA base’s demands for Middle East non-intervention.
As Secretary of State Rubio’s initial statements show, when Israel began its attacks on June 13, the U.S. government’s reaction was distanced. The expression “the U.S. is not involved” reflected the administration’s basic stance at that time.
Section 2: Gradual Policy Transformation
However, as Israel’s military operations achieved more success than expected, Trump’s attitude gradually changed. On June 16, Trump called for Tehran citizens to evacuate, and on June 17, he issued direct threats to Supreme Leader Khamenei, escalating in stages.
Behind this change was a shift in the assessment of Israel’s military success. The initially skeptical U.S. administration, witnessing the effectiveness of precision strikes on nuclear facilities and military leadership, may have reconsidered this as “a military operation with winning prospects.”
Chapter 2: Erdoğan’s Mediation Efforts and Their Limitations
Section 1: Details of Turkey’s Mediation Proposal
On June 16, while Trump attended the G7 summit in Canada, Turkish President Erdoğan proposed mediation. The proposal was specific: hosting a U.S.-Iran high-level meeting in Istanbul on June 17.
Trump’s response was positive. He promised to send Vice President JD Vance and Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and even showed readiness for a direct meeting with President Pezeshkian himself. This unusually proactive stance demonstrated Trump’s strong expectations for a diplomatic solution.
Section 2: Iran’s Structural Problems
Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan conveyed the proposal to Iran’s President Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Araghchi. Interestingly, at this point, Iran was reportedly sending signals through other back channels that they wanted to meet with the U.S.
However, a fatal structural problem in Iran’s political system was exposed. Contact with Supreme Leader Khamenei, who holds final decision-making authority on foreign policy, was completely severed. Attempts by President Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Araghchi to contact Khamenei failed, and Iran ultimately informed Turkey that they “could not convey the proposal to the Supreme Leader.”
Chapter 3: Netanyahu’s Consistent Strategy
Section 1: Long-term Anti-Iran Strategy
Netanyahu has mentioned the Iranian threat since his 1982 writings and has consistently advocated for a hard-line policy toward Iran for over 40 years. During the Obama administration 2015, he opposed the Iran nuclear deal in a congressional speech, showing a willingness to risk deteriorating relations with the president.
This long-term strategy consistently argued for skepticism toward diplomatic solutions and the necessity of military solutions. For Netanyahu, the 2025 situation likely appeared as an opportunity to realize decades-long policy objectives.
Section 2: Domestic Political Pressures
In June 2025, Netanyahu faced serious domestic political difficulties. Just after midnight on June 12, a government dissolution motion was narrowly defeated, and ultra-Orthodox military exemption issues, corruption trials, and coalition government divisions threatened his administration.
In this situation, the Iran attack brought a rallying effect on domestic public opinion. However, determining whether this was a primary motivation for launching the attack remains difficult.
Chapter 4: Khamenei’s Isolation and Iran’s Political System Dysfunction
Section 1: Physical Isolation of the Supreme Leader
Due to Israeli attacks, 86-year-old Khamenei retreated to underground shelters fearing assassination, severing contact with government officials. This physical isolation exposed the vulnerability of Iran’s authoritarian political system.
The concentration of crucial foreign policy decisions in one Supreme Leader meant that his communication breakdown resulted in paralysis of the entire nation’s decision-making system. This structural problem made diplomatic solutions physically impossible.
Section 2: Limits of Iran’s Response Capacity
President Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Araghchi were under institutional constraints that prevented them from engaging in important diplomatic negotiations without Khamenei’s approval. Their failed contact attempts demonstrated the rigidity of Iran’s political system.
Ultimately, Iran expressed the position that “nuclear negotiations cannot resume as long as attacks continue,” clearly linking diplomacy and military action.
Chapter 5: Trump’s Psychological Changes and Decision Factors
Section 1: Betrayal of Diplomatic Expectations and Humiliation
Given the high expectations for Erdoğan’s mediation efforts, their collapse was a major disappointment for Trump. The fact that his unusually proactive stance, including consideration of visiting Istanbul himself, came to nothing likely created a sense of personal humiliation.
His later media interview statement that he “tried to save Iran from humiliation and death” may reflect this psychological state.
Section 2: Logic of Turning to Military Options
With diplomatic solutions blocked, military options became relatively more attractive. With Israel’s military operations showing results, the judgment to “back the winning horse” gained credibility.
At the same time, caught between the Republican Party’s MAGA faction (Middle East non-intervention) and neoconservatives (Iran hawks), “limited nuclear facility attacks” functioned as a political compromise.
Chapter 6: Interaction of Multiple Factors
Section 1: Timing’s Coincidence and Inevitability
The timing of each factor influenced the others. Erdoğan’s mediation efforts and Israel’s military attacks, Khamenei’s isolation and Trump’s diplomatic expectations all overlapped simultaneously, rapidly steering events toward military solutions.
However, determining how much of these factors were planned versus accidental remains difficult to judge at present.
Section 2: Complex Motivations for the Final Decision
Trump’s final decision appears to result from a combination of multiple motivations rather than a single factor. Diplomatic disappointment, political calculations, alliance considerations, expectations of military success, and recovery from personal humiliation all worked together.
Particularly important was obtaining the justification that “diplomatic solutions were sincerely sought but rejected by the other side,” which lowered political barriers to military intervention.
Conclusion: Lessons from Complex Decision-Making Processes
This series of events demonstrates the complexity of decision-making in contemporary international politics. Personal emotions, institutional constraints, political calculations, military realities, and diplomatic expectations became entangled in complex ways, leading to the final policy decision.
Particularly noteworthy is how the interaction of different political systems (the U.S. presidential system, Iran’s theocracy, Israel’s parliamentary system, andTurkey’s presidential system) produced unexpected results. The characteristics and limitations of each system made diplomatic solutions difficult overall and opened the path to military options.
This case also reaffirms the magnitude of impact that localised political decisions can have on the global economy and international order in our globalised modern world. The structural vulnerability of how Middle Eastern political developments ripple across the entire world through effects on oil prices has also become clear.
Leave a Reply