Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble
U.S. President Donald Trump walks after delivering an address to the nation at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool
WASHINGTON - With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war.
The dramatic U.S. strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns.
Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said.
Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the 'forever wars' that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as 'stupid' and promised never to be dragged into.
'The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,' said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. 'But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick.'
In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program.
A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were 'the right thing to do.'
Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a 'high probability of success,' the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the U.S. to deliver the potentially crowning blow.
NUCLEAR THREAT REMAINS
Trump touted the "great success" of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive "bunker-buster bombs" on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over.
Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes.
'In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,' the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan U.S.-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement.
'Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran's program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,' the group said.
Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran's next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit 'soft targets' of the U.S. and Israel inside and outside the region.
But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – 'though they would be doing so in an even weaker position' – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp.
In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions.
Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets.
Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: 'Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It's unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.'
'REGIME CHANGE'
Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking 'regime change' if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon.
That, in turn, would bring additional risks.
'Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,' said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. 'You'll find the bones of many failed U.S. moral missions buried in Middle East sands.'
Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in 'disproportionate attacks' if it felt its survival was imperiled.
But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential U.S. inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies.
At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base.
Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second.
Even if he hopes U.S. military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents.
Trump's slogan of 'peace through strength' will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
'Trump is back in the war business,' said Richard Gowan, U.N. director at the International Crisis Group. 'I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy." REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
UK's Starmer urges Middle East de-escalation in calls with leaders of Jordan and Oman
FILE PHOTO: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer looks on during his meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa (not in picture), ahead of bilateral talks at 10 Downing Street, London, Britain June 19, 2025. Jordan Pettitt/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo LONDON - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that Iran should return to the negotiating table and that an escalation of the situation in the Middle East is in no-one's interests in calls with the leaders of Jordan and Oman, his office said on Sunday. A Downing Street spokesperson said Starmer "agreed on the grave threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme and reiterated calls for them to return to the negotiating table" in a call with Sultan of Oman Haitham bin Tarik al Said. "An escalation of the conflict is in no-one's interests and the focus must be on de-escalation, they added," according to the readout after strikes by the United States on Iran. In a separate call with King Abdullah II of Jordan, Downing Street said "they called on Iran to return to the negotiating table in pursuit of a diplomatic solution." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
US strikes 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear ambitions, Pentagon chief says
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth holds a briefing at the Pentagon, after the U.S. struck Iranian nuclear facilities, during the Israel-Iran conflict, in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., June 22, 2025 in this still image taken from handout video. Reuters TV/U.S. Department of Defense/Handout via REUTERS U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth holds a briefing at the Pentagon, after the U.S. struck Iranian nuclear facilities, during the Israel-Iran conflict, in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., June 22, 2025 in this still image taken from handout video. Reuters TV/U.S. Department of Defense/Handout via REUTERS WASHINGTON - U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Sunday that U.S. military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities were an incredible and overwhelming success that have obliterated Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The U.S. strikes included 14 bunker-buster bombs, more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles and over 125 military aircraft, in an operation the top U.S. general, General Dan Caine, said was named "Operation Midnight." The operation pushes the Middle East to the brink of a major new conflagration in a region already aflame for more than 20 months with wars in Gaza and Lebanon and a toppled dictator in Syria. "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated," Hegseth told reporters in a briefing, adding that said the strikes did not target Iranian troops or people. "The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant, showing the world that American deterrence is back. When this president speaks, the world should listen," Hegseth said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
US strikes on Iran nuclear sites are real-life test of hard power's limits
A combination picture shows satellite images over Fordow, before and after the U.S. struck the underground nuclear facility, near Qom, Iran, June 2, 2025 (L) and June 22, 2025. Planet Labs PBC via REUTERS VIENNA/PARIS - U.S. military strikes overnight in which President Donald Trump said Iran's main nuclear sites were "obliterated" will put to the test the widely held view that such attacks can delay a nuclear programme but not kill a determined push for atom bombs. As Iran's nuclear programme has expanded and become more sophisticated over the past two decades, many officials and nuclear experts have warned: You can destroy or disable a nuclear programme's physical infrastructure but it is very hard or impossible to eliminate the knowledge a country has acquired. Western powers including the United States have publicly suggested as much, complaining of the "irreversible knowledge gain" Iran has made by carrying out activities they object to. "Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge," the Washington-based Arms Control Association said in a statement after the U.S. strikes with massive bunker-busting bombs on sites including Iran's two main underground enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow. "The strikes will set Iran's programme back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities, possibly prompting it to consider withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and possibly proceeding to weaponisation." Israel has also said it has killed Iranian nuclear scientists but, while little is known about the personnel side of Iran's nuclear programme, officials have said they are sceptical about that having a serious impact on Iran's nuclear knowledge, even if it might slow progress in the near term. The West says there is no civilian justification for Iran's enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade fissile purity. Iran says its nuclear objectives are solely peaceful and it has the right to enrich as much as it wants. Iran's nuclear programme has made rapid advances since Trump pulled the United States out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and major powers that placed strict limits on its atomic activities in exchange for sanctions relief. After the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions, Iran pushed past and then far beyond the limits imposed by the deal on items like the purity to which it can enrich uranium and how much it can stockpile. URANIUM STOCK At least until Israel's first strikes against its enrichment installations on June 13, Iran was refining uranium to up to 60% purity, a short step from the roughly 90% that is bomb-grade, and far higher than the 3.67% cap imposed by the 2015 deal, which Iran respected until the year after Trump pulled out. The last report on May 31 by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, showed Iran had enough uranium enriched to up to 60%, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. It has more at lower levels like 20% and 5%. The exact impact of Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and materials has yet to be determined. In addition to the enrichment sites, the U.S. struck Isfahan, where officials have said much of Iran's most highly enriched uranium stock was stored underground. One important open question is how much highly enriched uranium Iran still has and whether it is all accounted for. A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's uranium refined to up to 60%, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack there. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state TV last weekend Iran would take measures to protect nuclear materials and equipment that would not be reported to the IAEA, and it would no longer cooperate with the IAEA as before. NORTH KOREA LOOMS LARGE The IAEA has not been able to carry out inspections in Iran since the first Israeli strikes nine days ago, but has said it is in contact with the Iranian authorities. What Iran will do next in terms of its nuclear programme is also unclear. Its threat to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty hints at a race for nuclear weapons, but Iran has maintained it has no intention of doing so. The only other country to announce its withdrawal from the NPT is North Korea in 2003. It expelled IAEA inspectors and went on to test nuclear weapons. "Our biggest concern is that we end up with a North Korea scenario whereby these strikes convince the Iranians that the only way to save the regime is to go for the bomb. Nobody is bombing North Korea now, are they?" a European official said. Even if inspections continue, because of Trump's withdrawal in 2018 Iran had already scrapped extra IAEA oversight provided for by the 2015 deal. That means the agency no longer knows how many centrifuges Iran has at undeclared locations. The IAEA says that while it cannot guarantee Iran's aims are entirely peaceful, it also has no credible indication of a coordinated nuclear weapons programme. The Israeli and now U.S. strikes have already raised fears among diplomats and other officials, however, that Iran will use those centrifuges to set up a secret enrichment site, since one could be built inside a relatively small and inconspicuous building like a warehouse. "It is quite possible that there are enrichment sites that we don't know about. Iran is a big country," a Western official said, while adding that Iran could also choose to bide its time. "In two years, if Iran were to start from scratch, they would only need a few months to reconstitute a new programme and to get back to where they were yesterday." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
