One of the foremost tools in the president’s belt is his peerless platform to persuade — what President Teddy Roosevelt called “such a bully [that is, ‘superb’] pulpit.” Some presidents — Joe Biden, for example — never know how to fill the pulpit, often seeing themselves as victims of public opinion rather than shapers of it. But epoch-shaping presidents succeed in hammering out a vision that brings public opinion along with their agenda.

On Israel’s war with Iran, President Trump is striving to be the latter type — both in the U.S. and overseas. Recognizing that — except for committed partisans — neither the world nor the American public has settled into a hardened opinion of the conflict, Trump is working to shape that perception. A prudent smith knows to strike while the iron is hot.

On Monday, Trump made waves at the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, when he refused to sign onto a draft statement about the Israel-Iran conflict. The draft “called for both sides to protect civilians and for tight monitoring of Iran’s nuclear facilities,” according to The Telegraph. The other members of the G7 — Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, and Japan — all agreed to the statement. But Trump insisted that Iran not be allowed to perform any uranium enrichment.

Perhaps surprisingly, given Trump’s rocky history with international leaders, the American president got his way. In the final statement, the G7 leaders affirmed “that Israel has a right to defend itself” and that “Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror.” The call for both sides to protect civilians was modified to “affirm[ing] the importance of the protection of civilians,” without insinuating a fault on Israel’s part. The statement was also “clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Having bent the heads of the world’s economic powerhouses to his will, Trump jetted back to Washington, D.C. a day early, canceling meetings with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, to monitor war developments from the Situation Room. “I have to be back,” he told reporters. “You probably see what I see, and I have to be back as soon as I can.” After all, the U.S. has numerous bases and troops in range of Iranian missiles.

But Trump did far more than monitor the situation. At 6:30 p.m., he posted on Truth Social, “Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!”

Trump’s concluding sentence might seem at first like a non-sequitur. But the background for the statement came as Israel was warning Iranian civilians that it would strike “very significant targets, strategic targets, targets of the regime and infrastructure” in Tehran on Tuesday. In other words, it served to warn Iran that more severe Israeli airstrikes are yet to come.

The next morning, Trump added further commentary on his return to the White House. “Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a ‘cease fire’ between Israel and Iran,” he wrote. “Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay Tuned!”

How mysterious! Trump certainly knows how to build suspense. Jabs at Macron aside, the world must be wondering what Trump could be working on that is “much bigger” than a ceasefire.

Perhaps the best insight into Trump’s tease involves a look in the rearview mirror, specifically to the overlooked coincidences preceding Israel’s strike on Iran.

Last Thursday offered a curious confluence of events. First, in a motion brought by the U.S. and European allies, the IAEA board ruled that Iran was not in compliance with its treaty obligations to submit to oversight of its nuclear stockpiles, provoking a belligerent response from Iran. Second, Trump said Thursday marked the 60th day of negotiations with Iran on April 12; in March, he gave Iran an ultimatum to reach a nuclear deal in 60 days or face the consequences. Finally, that night, Israel attacked.

It would be a striking coincidence if all these events occurred independently of one another in 24 hours. In fact, it is far more likely that they did not. Recall that the Trump administration was behind the IAEA vote at its June meeting, and the Trump administration was behind both the 60-day ultimatum and the scheduling of each diplomatic meeting. As recently as May 28, Trump told reporters that he was warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But Trump has shown nothing but support since Israel’s attack began Thursday night.

The close proximity of these swift changes raises questions: did the Trump administration plan it this way? Was Israel in on the plan beforehand, or did they simply take advantage of the moment?

Planned or not, Thursday’s events gave Israel the best possible diplomatic cover to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Not only had Iran exceeded the White House’s 60-day deadline, but it also received its first-ever formal rebuke by U.N. nuclear inspectors — to which Iran responded with an angry snarl. How often can Israel legitimately claim that the U.N. is on its side about anything? The result is, Iran was exposed for the irresponsible rogue actor that it is; in fact, it irrevocably cast itself as the bad guy.

If the Trump administration did orchestrate the timing, then it prepared the world to look more favorably on Israel’s assault when it finally came.

Israel “clearly couldn’t wait any longer for their own good,” said Senator Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “Nobody is on the clock quite like Israel when it comes to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. So, I don’t blame them a bit for doing it. I’m grateful to see President Trump’s strong support for it.”

“I’m equally grateful,” Cramer continued, “to see that we haven’t risked any American lives in the effort.” This raises another aspect of the president’s calculation: that some elements of his “America First” base are resistant to drawing our nation into the war.

Thus far, the Trump administration has effectively argued that the U.S. has taken no part in strikes against Iran, although it has helped Israel shoot down incoming missiles. This — along with Iran’s preoccupation with more pressing issues — has spared American bases from any imminent attacks. In fact, Trump is playing “good cop” to Israel’s “bad cop,” offering to resume negotiations with the Iranian regime if it becomes willing to reach a deal.

But this phase in the relationship may not endure forever. The U.S. military is moving additional equipment closer to the region. Two dozen tanker planes relocated from North America to Europe this week, and the U.S.S. Nimitz carrier strike group is racing from the Pacific theater towards the Middle East. As President Trump shuffles pieces around the board, the most important question in chess looms in the forefront: what’s the next move?

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

---

Like what you’re reading? Donate to The Washington Stand! From now until June 30, your gift will be doubled to fuel bold, biblically-based reporting.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.