'A game of chicken that has gone very badly': Donald Trump, who said no new wars, 'pre-emptively' attacks Iran

Months after the US began building up warships in the Persian Gulf, the US and Israel launched a massive attack on Iran Saturday morning, quickly leading to counterattacks on other countries, a shocking yet predictable move by US President Donald Trump, who touts himself as anti-war yet repeatedly threatens foreign invasions.

It's unclear if a pre-emptive war on Iran will boost the US leader's popularity—or that of his Israeli counterpart, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is also facing domestic pressure. In the past, the two countries have typically struck Iran separately, raising questions over a potential new strategy for Iran or the region.

This is, however, in line with a decades-long adversarial policy the US has had with Iran, a policy that many presidents have tried to manage through diplomacy. Former US President Barack Obama brought about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which Trump revoked in his first term, and afterwards, then-President Joe Biden tried to renegotiate.

At the ongoing (until Saturday morning) negotiations in Geneva, the Omanis appeared to make a last-ditch effort to bring the sides together. Days before Saturday’s attacks, US Vice President JD Vance suggested that diplomacy was the goal, saying that there was "no chance" of the US getting involved in a full-scale war in Iran.

"It seemed like there was an agreement that could have been had. Diplomacy was never given the time of day," Ryan Costello, policy director with the National Iranian American Council, told The New Arab.

"It all seemed like a cover for military operations. If he wanted a deal, he could have made it, but he chose war," he said.

"The purpose of these strikes is to make the US and Israel de-escalate. Yet, there might not be de-escalation because neither the US nor Israel trust the Iranian authorities anymore. The aim is to topple the regime no more, no less," Ohannes Geukjian, associate professor of political science and conflict resolution at the American University of Beirut, told TNA.

Trump appears to be bolstered by his swift ouster in January of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and an apparently weakened Iran (due to Israeli attacks and internal dissent), though military and regional experts warn that it would not be easy in Iran.

One of Trump's top military advisors, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine, reportedly privately warned the US president that striking Iran could pose a risk to American troops.

"General Caine, like all of us, would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won," Trump posted Monday on his Truth Social platform.

James Devine, associate professor of politics and international relations at Mount Allison University, told TNA that there would likely have been a crisis between the US and Iran over Iran's nuclear programme. However, he believes it could have probably been handled diplomatically. In this current case, he sees two sides that have underestimated the other's resolve.

"This is a game of chicken that has gone very badly," he said.

Some have raised questions over Trump's decision to go to war without the support of Congress. Devine sees it as part of Trump's style and strategy. If he'd waited for a congressional vote, particularly with the current Republican majority, there could have been public dissent within the party over going to war.

"If he's going to do it, he will do it, Donald Trump style. Big and quick," said Devine, though it's unclear if it's possible to do it quickly, particularly if the ultimate goal is regime change, which Trump has suggested could fall to ordinary Iranians.

"The big question is what comes next," said Costello. "It's very concerning. This is an unrestrained president acting on whims."

Across the US on Saturday, anti-war activists held emergency demonstrations in protest of the US-Israeli attack on Iran.