In the Oval Office, Trump said he told Netanyahu “don’t do that,” and added Netanyahu “won’t do that,” and said that stopping the attacks would prevent things from getting worse. He said the relationship between the US and Israel is mostly coordinated, though each country is independent.
Trump said on social media that he “knew nothing about this particular attack,” which shows the disagreement between the two countries about how much they planned the operation together. He also said Israel wouldn’t respond unless Iran attacked “innocent” countries, and promised a very strong response if Iran attacked energy resources they both use again.
Disputed accounts over US awareness and coordination
People working for the government and other people with knowledge of the situation give different explanations about whether the US knew about, or worked with Israel on, the attack on Iran’s offshore gas field. Someone in Israel who knows about the operation said Washington was included in the planning. A person in the US also said Washington knew the attack was happening.
These accounts are different from the President’s original statement that he hadn’t known anything about it, and show a frequent difference between what’s said publicly and what the intelligence agencies or military are actually doing. This difference in information makes it harder to get the political message across, and makes you wonder about the process of discussing and approving sensitive military actions.
Impact on regional energy supplies and markets
The attack on the Iranian part of the South Pars gas field started a series of attacks throughout the Gulf, including some that damaged major facilities that make liquefied natural gas. One Gulf facility that makes a large amount of the world’s gas said it lost almost 20% of what it can export after being attacked.
The problems with energy supply quickly affected the energy markets. Stock markets around the world went down and the price of natural gas went up as traders considered the risk to the supply. Damage to oil refineries and plants that make LNG in the region have immediate effects on business, and raise worries about having enough fuel for the winter and long-term ways to get fuel from different places.
US troop deployment stance and military considerations
When asked about sending more troops, Trump was very clear: “I’m not putting troops anywhere.” He added that if he were to send troops, he wouldn’t say so publicly. This sets a limit on how many troops will be sent quickly, but doesn’t rule out other kinds of help. There had been reports the government was thinking about sending more troops to the area. So far, American soldiers have been hurt in actions related to the conflict, which affects how likely it is that troops will be sent and what level of risk is acceptable.
The President stepping in shows he is trying to calm things down when it comes to direct attacks on energy facilities. He is worried about the global economy being harmed and a much larger war starting. By limiting attacks on energy targets, Washington hopes to reduce the reasons for Iran to attack back, which could get other countries and the supply of fuel to civilians involved.
Strategic implications for US policy and regional stability
However, this situation also demonstrates the problems with just informally working together. The governments may need clearer ways to avoid conflicts and communication methods to prevent unexpected escalation. Those making policy will have to balance stopping attacks against Iran with protecting the flow of energy for business and keeping the area stable.
Tension is still very high. Iran has said it will show “zero restraint” if their energy facilities are hit again. The markets and diplomats will be looking for more attacks or agreements to limit them, as the United States tries to support its allies while also avoiding a wider war.
