Second-term Donald Trump has not been a president noted for temporising. From the blizzard of Executive Orders issued within hours of his inauguration, to the multiple trade tariffs, the military raid that snatched the Venezuelan leader into US custody, and the assault on Iran almost 100 days ago, he has given every impression of being a president in a hurry, whatever legal and constitutional challenges might follow.
Suddenly, though, that flurry of activity has stalled. The world now wakes up to discover not what Trump has done, but – for the most part – what he has not done. Any military strikes in the Middle East are "measured, purely defensive, and intended to maintain the ceasefire". Meanwhile, one or more multi-point peace plans are evidently still under discussion. So far this week, Trump has called two cabinet meetings on Iran, which produced next to nothing. The act-now, think-later president suddenly looks more like the ultimate procrastinator, locked in a conflict he cannot get out of without seeming to retreat.
True, a flash of the old Trump emerged with his threat to "blow up" Oman, a long-standing American ally, if the Gulf state blocked his plans for reopening the blocked Strait of Hormuz. For all the surprising casualness of the remark, and the backlash it prompted, this seemed more to underline his seriousness about his main aim than anything else. History may judge the moment differently. One day, it may represent the moment that a Trump let slip his frustration at how his war panned out.
For now, it is the hesitation – in deed, if not always words – that has marked Trump's recent responses. If this more reflective Trump can bring himself to lift the blockade on Iran's ports as unilaterally as he imposed it, that would be even more welcome, given that Iran has set this as the main condition for reopening the still largely blocked Strait, with all the costs to third countries this has entailed.
Unofficial reports suggest that a draft peace agreement is now in two parts, with shipping in the first part and the fate of Iran's nuclear programme set aside for separate talks. If so, then this could take US-Iran relations back to roughly where they were before the war: hardly ideal, but better than where they are today.
So why is this taking so long to be finalised? Trump's uncharacteristic hesitation suggests that the last thing he wants is a return to war. This could be for domestic political reasons, including the mid-term elections (which he denies), or because of lobbying from the Gulf states, or because he understands that in trying to take on Iran militarily, even the US has bitten off more than it can chew. So why not just do it in his own inimitable way? The answer may well come down to one country: Israel.
It is reported that the latest version of an agreement is currently being circulated among US allies in the region. Trying to square regional players has been a Trump tactic in the Middle East since his first term, when he concluded the Abraham Accords on several Gulf states' recognition of Israel. More recently, he ensured the mass presence of regional leaders at the signing of the peace deal on Gaza. And the widest possible regional buy-in would similarly be a plus for this agreement, too, in reducing the risks of failure.
How far does Israel share what seems to be a widespread appetite for ending hostilities? After the first US-Israel attacks on Iran in February, it was reported that the timing, and even the nature of the attack, had been effectively dictated by Israel. The suggestion was that Trump had been convinced by Israel both that Iran was on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, and that the regime was at its weakest for years. In one move, Israel would be rid of a power that it had long seen as willing its destruction, and the sponsor of armed groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatened its own security.
Making common military cause with Israel, however, can be seen as a fateful decision for the United States, in that it meant effectively signing up to Israel's agenda as well as its own. And this makes it doubly hard for the US to extract itself on its own terms. That Israel has renewed attacks on southern Lebanon and assassinated the new head of Hamas in Gaza in recent days could demonstrate that it is intent on using every hour of every day before any agreement takes effect. It might not be too far-fetched to suggest that Israel sees its interest in delaying any peace for as long as possible, or even preventing it altogether.
Nor is it so simple for Trump just to cast Israel off. At home, there is the long-standing US support for the State of Israel – support that Trump and his Republicans need. Abroad, there is the message that this could send about the ability, and the will, of the US to protect its allies. There is a third, more personal, angle, too. Trump's interest in and understanding of Israel comes in part via his Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has become a key member of his negotiating team.
But peace with Iran is nowhere near the top of Israel's diplomatic agenda, or that of Benjamin Netanyahu, for whom destroying the Islamic regime and completely de-nuclearising Iran have long been a prime, personal mission. And there are plenty of ways in which Israel could spoil or delay a Trump "deal" with Iran, whether by launching attacks of its own or keeping a free rein for regionally de-stabilising sorties against Hezbollah and Hamas.
The marginally positive news might be that an Israeli election is now on the cards for the autumn – an election that could well remove Netanyahu from power. But the autumn is a long way away, and Israel is a democracy that can throw up complex coalitions. His decision to join Israel's duel against Iran could yet become one of Donald Trump's biggest second-term regrets.
