It is essential to assert unequivocally that the foreign policy of the United States under President Donald Trump has proven to be extremely erratic and inconsistent, particularly with the constant flow of information emerging from the White House.

This unpredictability and inconsistency have created significant challenges for us, as international security experts, in anticipating the US’s next steps regarding whether it will actively support Israel in the ongoing Israeli-Iranian conflict.

It is crucial to objectively assess that Iran swiftly recovered from its own version of a Pearl Harbour attack. The Pearl Harbour attack represented a surprise military assault by the Imperial Japanese Navy on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, on the morning of December 7, 1941.

This rapid recovery, along with other factors, is a pivotal shift that necessitates the President of the United States to take two weeks to contemplate what course of action should be pursued.

I have identified many reasons why President Trump needs this two-week period to reach the most informed decision before any direct involvement in the Israeli-Iranian conflict. However, due to constraints of space and time, I categorise these reasons into two groups: internal and external factors.

Internal factors include: lessons from history, economic consequences at home, public sentiment, and socio-political ramifications.

Historical Lesson: The United States’ campaign against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. On September 12, 2002, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu testified before Congress, asserting that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. It did not take long for the United States to discover that Saddam did not actually possess any weapons of mass destruction. This represents one of the most significant strategic blunders in the modern history of U.S. foreign policy.

This strategic error occurred alongside the 20-year conflict in Afghanistan, where the U.S. is estimated to have spent three trillion dollars. Ultimately, the Taliban ended up reclaiming control of Afghanistan.

When considering domestic economic implications, war is too expensive, whereas diplomacy is significantly more affordable. Currently, the United States’ national debt stands at about 38 trillion dollars, according to the U.S. National Debt Clock. A growing number of Americans are losing jobs due to domestic economic difficulties that have led to the implementation of the U.S. tariff war.

Public opinion is shifting against America’s involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, which could put approximately 90,000 U.S. military personnel in the Gulf region in jeopardy.

Domestically, citizens in the United States are worried about the socio-political effects on Americans as they travel frequently for vacation, business, and other related purposes, if their leadership decides to engage in the war initiated by Israel.

External Influences: Impacts on the global economy, geostrategic ramifications, the role of Russian specialists at the nuclear facility, and global divisions are significant factors to consider.

It should be noted that if the US decides to engage militarily in the conflict between Israel and Iran, Iran has threatened to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz, which is crucial for approximately 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply.

Economic analysts have predicted that if this occurs, the price of crude oil could increase from over $70 to more than $100 per barrel.

Geostrategically, it is already a considerable challenge that Iran shares borders with seven nations, one of which is a nuclear-armed country (Pakistan). Iran also supplies a substantial portion of oil to Japan and China.

Furthermore, Iran is a prominent member of BRICS, serving as a representative voice for the Global South and helping to balance the international landscape.

Additionally, President Vladimir Putin has indicated that around 600 Russian specialists are presently engaged at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, and he has no intention of withdrawing them. Nevertheless, various other reports suggested that Putin withdrew all Russian scientists from Iran.

The potential involvement of the United States may further entrench the existing polarisation in the international system, which is already struggling with inconsistencies, as the foundations of international law appear to be weakening.

There are other factors why President Trump might seek a two-week delay to decide, due to a sensitive issue that could steer the United States toward an uncertain outcome. If the US were to engage Iran, it might necessitate the deployment of 600,000 to 800,000 troops on the ground.

The US competing with China will be out of reality; this situation could lead to an extended conflict, potentially shaping President Trump’s legacy. I believe that pursuing diplomacy is more cost-effective than engaging in war.

Oseni, a former U.S. Police officer, U.S. Army veteran, who specialises in international security at Harvard University and American Military University, wrote via [email protected]