Saed News: Professor Paul Pillar believes that for Trump, Israel’s attack on Iran is a continuation of the “maximum pressure” policy on Iran.
According to Saed News, quoting Tabnak, a former member of the U.S. National Intelligence Council stated that Trump views Israel’s attack on Iran as another form of pressure—alongside economic sanctions—intended to force Iran to offer more concessions at the negotiating table. “He is wrong about this,” the official said, “but he always tends to believe that any show of power will help him achieve his goals.”
In the early hours of Friday, June 13, 2025, following a terrorist attack by the Israeli regime on Tehran and several other Iranian cities, a number of military commanders, scientists, and civilians were martyred.
In response, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, addressed the nation in a message and stated: “The regime must await severe punishment. The powerful hand of Iran’s armed forces will not let it go unpunished, by God’s will.”
Subsequently, Iran targeted military positions in cities such as Tel Aviv and Haifa in the occupied territories.
On this subject, Tabnak conducted an interview with Professor Paul Pillar, a professor at Georgetown University in the U.S.
Background on Paul Pillar:
Paul Pillar is a senior editor at The National Interest, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies and the Geneva Center for Security Policy. He retired in 2005 after 28 years in the U.S. intelligence community, including the CIA, and later served as a visiting professor in Georgetown’s security studies program.
He held key government positions such as National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, chief of CIA analytical units in the Near East, Persian Gulf, and South Asia, deputy director of the DCI Counterterrorist Center, and executive assistant to the CIA Director. He is also a Vietnam War veteran and retired U.S. Army officer.
He holds degrees from Dartmouth College (honorary), Oxford (B.A. in Philosophy), and Princeton (M.A. and Ph.D.). His books include Negotiating Peace (1983), Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy (2001), Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy (2011), and Why America Misunderstands the World (2016).
Q: Israel attacked Iranian territory, and Western countries like France and Germany supported the aggression, though they also called for de-escalation. Legally, what is the position of countries that support an aggressor?
Pillar: I’m not a lawyer and don’t wish to interpret international law in this regard. However, it’s clear that Israel’s act was itself a violation of international law. Respecting international law means opposing aggression—not supporting it.
Q: Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, raising risks of radioactive leakage. The IAEA delayed convening an emergency session. What is your assessment?
Pillar: IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi issued a comprehensive statement, noting that any radioactive contamination seems localized to the sites hit. He also emphasized reliance on diplomacy and non-use of force. That statement effectively reflects the IAEA's official position, regardless of whether the Board of Governors met sooner.
Q: The attack came two days before the sixth round of U.S.-Iran negotiations. Reports say Netanyahu informed Trump of the plan, and Trump did not object. Was this a setup to mislead Iran about the timing?
Pillar: Deception was likely part of Israel’s calculation, and it appears successful—Iranian officials seemed surprised by the timing, even though signs of Israeli preparation were evident. But this level of strategic thinking doesn’t match Trump’s usual behavior; it likely came from the Israeli side.
Q: Despite the attack, Iran didn’t withdraw from talks, just delayed them. Will negotiations resume?
Pillar: The core reasons Iran seeks a new deal still exist, so talks are likely to resume eventually. But trust in Trump was already low due to his 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA. If Iran believes the talks were a smokescreen for Israel’s attack, resuming negotiations with Trump will be much harder.
Q: The U.S. showed implicit support for Israel’s actions but claimed non-involvement. Why didn’t the U.S. stop Israel while also negotiating with Iran?
Pillar: Trump sees the Israeli attack as an extension of “maximum pressure,” like economic sanctions, aimed at forcing Iran into concessions. He is wrong, but he believes shows of strength help him win. His stance also reflects domestic political concerns—particularly support from Christian Zionists who demand unconditional U.S. support for Israel. To retain their favor, Trump avoids appearing opposed to Netanyahu.
