G7 Summit: What Trump's departure means for the Middle East

Kananaskis/Calgary. What happens next in the Middle East depends primarily on one person: Donald Trump. The US president plays a key role in the conflict between Israel and Iran because of the United States' military might. And that's exactly what the Republican is demonstrating before the eyes of the world.

The 79-year-old left the G7 summit in Canada early, leaving behind the other heads of state and government who had hoped to find a common line with him on the new war in the Middle East. In the end, nothing more than a brief statement addressing the lowest common denominator emerged. Trump, the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, who doesn't think much of multilateralism and has a penchant for going it alone, made it clear: He is making his key decisions regarding the future of the Middle East alone.

At the moment, there are many indications that Trump wants to keep the US out of the conflict militarily, is striving for a negotiated solution – and considers a nuclear agreement with Iran possible.

But it's unclear whether he can ultimately avert a military conflict for the US. The American military has increased its presence in the Middle East as a precaution. And the US president is sending cryptic warnings to the Iranians: a call for all residents of Tehran to leave the city. Is this a threatening omen of a possible US strike or a bluff to pressure Iran into talks?

The US President made a bizarre appearance at the start of the G7 summit. In the early evening, he unexpectedly announced his departure – due to the situation in the Middle East. Before Trump left Canada, however, the G7 leaders unexpectedly agreed on a joint statement on the war between Israel and Iran.

Given Trump's often erratic and volatile policies, it's also possible that he hasn't yet settled on a path. Here's an overview of the various possible scenarios:

Iran already sees the US, as Israel's main supporter in the conflict, as sharing responsibility. Should the Iranian leadership order retaliatory strikes against American bases in the Middle East—or, in the heat of the moment, strike US targets in the region without any real intent—it would be unthinkable that the US would not retaliate.

Trump has repeatedly made clear that the US military would respond with the utmost severity in such a case—"on an unprecedented scale." This would represent a completely new and dramatic escalation level. At the moment, however, it doesn't look as if the weakened Iran wants to take on the US.

Israel's major attack against Iran is aimed at preventing the country from developing nuclear weapons. However, experts say certain nuclear facilities in Iran are located so deep underground that attacking them would require so-called bunker-buster bombs, which only the US possesses. Their delivery would also require US equipment: namely, B-2 and B-52 bombers. Some experts therefore argue that Israel cannot achieve its war goal without active military support from the US.

If Trump were to order the US military to participate offensively in attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, that would also be an escalation of a completely new order. However, that doesn't seem likely at the moment.

The US government dismissed reports of alleged American attacks against Iran as "false" and emphasized that its own troops in the Middle East remain committed to simply defending themselves if necessary. Citing government sources, the news site Axios reported that Trump's team had informed several partners in the Middle East that they did not intend to actively intervene in the war as long as no US targets were attacked.

What's moving the United States: RND's US experts provide context and background information. Every Tuesday.

By subscribing to the newsletter I agree to the advertising agreement .

Trump has repeatedly made it clear that he does not want to lead the US into new wars. Military conflicts anywhere in the world do not fit with his "America First" policy. While the Republican is committed to belligerent rhetoric and a military buildup, he claims this is more with the goal of deterrence. Shortly before the G7 summit, Trump said, referring to Iran and Israel: "Sometimes they have to fight it out."

However, Trump isn't interested in seeing the Middle East ablaze, being accused of losing control, and energy prices skyrocketing around the world, which would ultimately affect his voters at home. Therefore, while military abstinence is an option, political inaction is not.

Trump's previous statements all point in this direction. Since launching Israel's major attack on Iran, Trump has emphasized that a peace deal between the two sides is possible and that, given the increased pressure, Tehran may now be more willing to negotiate its nuclear program. On the sidelines of the G7 summit, he said the Iranians want to talk and make a deal. Tehran is "practically already at the negotiating table." He expects an agreement. "They want to make a deal, and as soon as I leave here, we'll do something."

The self-proclaimed "dealmaker" Trump has been trying for months to negotiate a limit on Iran's nuclear program to prevent Tehran from building nuclear weapons – in return for a relaxation of the drastic sanctions against the country. Direct talks on this topic were held between Washington and Tehran, mediated by the Gulf state of Oman. Following the military escalation between Israel and Iran, a planned further round of talks was initially canceled.

Now, according to Trump, Iran wants to return to the negotiating table. Tehran could make this a condition that the US stays out of the conflict militarily and Israel stops its attacks.

RND/dpa