16/06/2025
The Hypocritical Approach of Donald Trump in the Iran–Israel War
The Iran–Israel war that erupted in June 2025 has revealed not only military and geopolitical tensions but also glaring contradictions in how global powers respond to conflict. One of the most prominent figures whose stance has drawn scrutiny is former U.S. President Donald Trump. His approach to the war has been described by many analysts and observers as hypocritical—marked by contradictions between rhetoric and action, favoritism, and strategic opportunism.
---
Support for Israel — with Limits
Donald Trump has consistently expressed unwavering support for Israel. In the wake of Iranian missile strikes on Israeli cities, he reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself, describing the attacks as “acts of aggression that must be answered decisively.” His administration's legacy includes the Abraham Accords, recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and greenlighting Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Yet, Trump recently vetoed a plan by the Israeli government to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. According to reports from *AP News*, Trump advised restraint, warning that such an operation would lead to uncontrollable escalation. While this decision may appear as an effort to de-escalate the conflict, critics argue it highlights a double standard: the former president had previously authorized the assassination of Iran’s top general, Qasem Soleimani, in 2020.
> Critics ask: Why was killing Soleimani “justified” in 2020, but targeting Khamenei—a higher-level architect of Iranian policy—off-limits in 2025?
---
Trump’s Mixed Message on Diplomacy
Trump’s position reveals another contradiction: while promoting strong military action, he simultaneously calls for diplomacy. His messaging suggests a preference for limited, controlled conflict—enough to assert dominance, but not enough to destabilize the global economy or risk a regional war that could tarnish his foreign policy legacy.
This approach fails to recognize that partial or inconsistent engagement often emboldens both sides. Iran interprets hesitation as weakness, while Israeli hardliners may view U.S. caution as a betrayal of their shared strategic interests.
Selective Outrage and Historical Context
Trump’s approach also reflects a broader hypocrisy in U.S. foreign policy: selective outrage. The Trump administration condemned Iranian missile tests and proxy militia actions while turning a blind eye to Israeli airstrikes on Syrian and Iranian targets, including civilian infrastructure. Furthermore, when Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Syria—a move that contributed directly to Iran’s 2025 retaliatory missile barrage—the Trump camp remained silent.
This double standard feeds into Iran’s narrative of Western hypocrisy, bolstering anti-American sentiment across the region.
Political Opportunism
Observers have noted that Trump’s recent interventions in the conflict seem designed not just for diplomatic impact, but for domestic political gain. By positioning himself as both a staunch defender of Israel and a voice of “strategic caution,” he seeks to appeal to a broad spectrum of American voters—from evangelical conservatives to war-weary moderates.
In short, Trump’s statements reflect a politician navigating re-election calculations more than a statesman pursuing consistent international policy.
---
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s stance on the Iran–Israel war encapsulates the contradictions of modern power politics. While he champions Israel’s security, he also blocks Israel’s most aggressive plans. While calling for peace, he built his foreign policy legacy on confrontation. These inconsistencies don’t merely undermine U.S. credibility—they contribute to the dangerous ambiguity that fuels escalation in the Middle East.
If the world seeks de-escalation and justice, it will require more than performative statements and selective interventions. It demands clarity, consistency, and the courage to apply international law and diplomacy equally to all sides.
