President Trump’s statements concerning the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran have oscillated dramatically—from passionately endorsing Israeli military strikes to pointedly distancing the U.S. from them, then seemingly reversing again.

This shifting stance has contributed to a growing sense of instability, coinciding with an escalation in the violence on the ground and Trump's early departure from the G7 summit in Canada. He cited "big stuff" awaiting him in Washington as his reason for leaving.

The White House attributed his departure to developments in the Middle East, though later on Truth Social Trump clarified it “had nothing to do with a Cease Fire.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier announced that the offensive actions were being "fully coordinated" with the U.S.

So what’s weighing on Trump—and what courses of action are still on his table?

• Follow live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict here

As Israeli rockets hit Tehran on Thursday, Trump warned Iran’s leadership of potentially “harsher” attacks, carried out by Israel using U.S.-supplied weapons.

Trump’s larger goal is no secret. Alongside Netanyahu, he insists Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. But while Trump favors negotiation to prevent it—evoking his self-branded image as a top-tier dealmaker—Netanyahu has pressed for a strictly military option.

Trump has toggled between saber-rattling and outreach, at times suggesting that military strikes could either pave the way toward diplomacy or make such talks impossible.

• Where is Israel’s operation headed?

Trump’s unpredictability is sometimes couched by allies as calculated—a play straight out of what’s known in diplomatic circles as the “madman theory,” where feigned unpredictability keeps opponents off balance. The strategy, also associated with President Nixon, implies that erratic posturing might force concessions.

Some Trump advisors support a “maximum pressure” variant of this strategy with Iran, aiming to force Tehran into concessions. They argue Iran isn’t sincere about negotiations, despite its participation in the 2015 Obama-era nuclear agreement—an accord Trump later exited.

Netanyahu continues to urge Trump to choose hard power over negotiation, and though Trump has publicly spoken of winning a Nobel Peace Prize, he may conclude that fulfilling his aggressive threats offers more immediate returns.

Behind closed doors, Israel is reportedly urging the U.S. to participate directly, believing that American bunker-busting munitions are necessary to disable Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities, particularly at Fordow.

And as the conflict widens, Trump faces growing pressure from Republican hawks in Congress, many of whom have long championed the idea of regime change in Iran.

Some advisors point out that increased pressure might coerce Iran back to the negotiating table—though Tehran was already engaged, with a sixth round of talks scheduled in Oman with Trump’s representative Steve Witkoff.

That round has now been scrapped.

Publicly, Trump insists the United States is not taking part in Israel’s latest attacks.

The intensification of hostilities carries grave, long-term risk for Trump’s legacy. American naval forces and ground missile systems are already assisting Israel in defending against Iranian retaliation.

Members of Trump's National Security Council are likely urging caution, warning that deeper involvement may inadvertently escalate Israel's military campaign—especially since some of Iran’s missiles have already bypassed Israeli and U.S. defenses, with deadly results.

• 'Don't let beautiful Tehran become Gaza'

• Israelis in missile-struck neighborhood continue to back war

Netanyahu contends that aiming at Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would conclude hostilities. However, an anonymous U.S. official stated over the weekend that Trump opposes this measure.

One major influence on Trump’s decision-making remains domestic opinion.

Though the majority of Congressional Republicans remain firmly pro-Israel—including support for arms shipments—a segment within Trump’s own MAGA movement has begun rejecting such unwavering alignment.

In recent days, MAGA proponents have questioned why the U.S. should risk deeper involvement in the Middle East, pointing to Trump’s "America First" foreign policy promise.

Prominent conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, an outspoken Trump supporter, published a sharp critique, alleging that U.S. involvement was deeper than claimed and suggesting the U.S. should sever ties with Israel.

He argued that Netanyahu and his “war-hungry government” were maneuvering the U.S. into fighting Iran on Israel’s behalf. Carlson wrote: “Engaging in this conflict is a slap in the face to millions of voters who backed a foreign policy centered on America’s priorities.”

Likewise, MAGA-aligned Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene took to X, asserting: “Anyone cheering for direct U.S. engagement in the Israel/Iran war isn't America First or MAGA.”

Trump faces a significant challenge here.

That pressure seems to be having an effect—at least publicly. Over the weekend, Trump appeared to shift, posting on social media in alignment with Russia's President Putin in calling for a ceasefire. By Sunday, he reiterated that Iran and Israel should negotiate a resolution, adding, “The U.S. was not involved in the attack on Iran.”

• Satellite images reveal damage to Iranian missile facilities

• Israel’s compact, tech-savvy military challenges Iran’s larger force

Iran has vowed to target American bases in the region in response to U.S. assistance to Israel.

Should American lives be lost, domestic criticism could grow among Trump’s isolationist base. This might increase the political pressure on Trump to curb further escalation—and even to lean on Netanyahu to bring military action to a quicker conclusion.