TEHRAN - The Guardian has analyzed how the American people were starting to laud Donald Trump for his resistance to the Israeli prime minister’s pull, but now, just less than 200 days into his office, he was fooled into attacking three nuclear sites in Iran, a highly dangerous move that could drag the U.S. into another war in the Middle East.

A shortened version of the article reads as follows:

When he was elected, Trump suggested he could hammer out a new relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister who was used to getting his way with the White House. But after just over 150 days in office, it appears Trump has fallen into the same trap as his predecessors – and launched the most consequential strike on Iran in generations.

From early suggestions that the Trump administration would rein in Netanyahu’s military ambitions, it now appears that the Israeli PM has maneuvered the U.S. into striking Iranian uranium enrichment sites directly. And the U.S. is now bracing for a retaliation that could easily bring it into a full-scale war.

Days before Trump’s inauguration, his envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, barreled into Israel with a demand to meet Netanyahu on Shabbat in order to strongarm him into negotiating a ceasefire deal with Hamas in Gaza.

Senior officials at the time chalked that up to the “Trump factor” – a reference to the unpredictability and dealmaking prowess of the U.S. president – which could provide a decisive edge in dealing with the Israeli PM.

While Netanyahu had been able to maneuver previous administrations into supporting his military adventures in the region, some critics of Israel began to laud Trump for his ability to resist Netanyahu’s pull.

But after the events of Saturday (early Sunday morning in Middle Eastern time) – when U.S. B-2 bombers pounded targets in Iran for the first time since Israel began to launch strikes on June 13 – it was clear that Trump’s intuition had changed. Members of his inner entourage also shifted from a MAGA isolationist approach to foreign policy to a more hawkish stance.

Trump’s public aversion to war and his promises as a candidate not to embroil the U.S. in further conflicts abroad was evaporating less than 200 days after he re-entered office.

When he appeared in public, Trump sought to put rumors of a troubled relationship with Netanyahu to rest. And he tried to show that U.S. policy was in lockstep with Israel, rejecting suggestions that Israel had blindsided the U.S. by pursuing an aggressive bombing campaign against Iran.

“I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu,” Trump said. “We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel.”

It was a far cry from the initial U.S. reaction to Israeli bombing raids on targets in Iran, when the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, called the strikes “unilateral” and claimed the U.S. was “not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region”.

What a difference a week makes. The U.S. now appears to have fully endorsed the Israeli strikes and joined the attack, potentially setting the stage for a series of escalations that could lead to a new war in the Middle East.

What does this mean for the future? Trump has claimed in public and private that the U.S. strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites were one-off missions and could be contained. U.S. forces in the Middle East have been warned of the potential for Iranian retaliation attacks.