The United States Bombed Iran. Now What?

President Donald Trump has done what he swore he would not do: involve the United States in a war in the Middle East. His supporters will tie themselves in knots (as Vice President J. D. Vance did last week) trying to jam the square peg of Trump's promises into the round hole of his actions. And many of them may avoid calling this 'war' at all, even though that's what Trump himself called it tonight. They will want to see it as a quick win against an obstinate regime that will eventually declare bygones and come to the table. But whether bombing Iran was a good idea or a bad idea—and it could turn out to be either, or both—it is war by any definition of the term, and something Trump had vowed he would avoid.
So what's next? Before considering the range of possibilities, it's important to recognize how much we cannot know at this moment. The president's statement tonight was a farrago of contradictions: He said, for example, that the main Iranian nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated'—but it will take time to assess the damage, and he has no way of knowing this. He claimed that the Iranian program has been destroyed—but added that there are still 'many targets' left. He said that Iran could suffer even more in the coming days—but the White House has reportedly assured Iran through backchannels that these strikes were, basically, a one-and-done, and that no further U.S. action is forthcoming.
(In a strange moment, he added: 'I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military.' Presidents regularly ask God to bless the American nation and its military forces—as Trump did in his next utterance—but it was a bit unnerving to see a commander in chief order a major military action and then declare how much 'we' love the Creator.)
Only one outcome is certain: Hypocrisy in the region and around the world will reach galactic levels as nations wring their hands and silently pray that the B-2s carrying the bunker-buster bombs did their job.
Beyond that, the most optimistic view is that the introduction of American muscle in this war will produce a humiliating end to Iran's long standing nuclear ambitions, enable more political disorder in Iran, and finally create the conditions for the fall of the mullahs. This may have been the Israeli plan from the start: Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's warnings about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability and the need to engage in preemption, this was a preventive war. The Israelis could not destroy sites such as Fordow without the Americans. Israeli military actions suggest that Netanyahu was trying to increase the chances of regime change in Tehran, while making a side bet on dragging Trump into the fray and outsourcing the tougher nuclear targets to the United States.
The very worst outcome is the polar opposite of the optimistic case. In this bleak alternative, the Air Force either didn't find, or couldn't destroy, all of the key parts of the Iranian program; the Iranians then try to sprint across the finish line to a bomb. In the meantime, Tehran lashes out against U.S. targets in the region and closes the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranian opposition fades in importance as angry Iranian citizens take their government's part.
One dangerous possibility in this pessimistic scenario is that the Iranians do real damage to American assets or kill a number of U.S. servicepeople, and Trump, confused and enraged, tries to widen his war against a country more than twice the size of Iraq.
Perhaps the most likely outcome, however, is more mixed. The Iranian program may not be completely destroyed, but if the intelligence was accurate and the bombers hit their targets, Tehran's nuclear clock has likely been set back years. (This in itself is a good thing; whether it is worth the risks Trump has taken is another question.) The Iranian people will likely rally around the flag and the regime, but the real question is whether that effect will last.
The Iranian regime will be wounded, but will likely survive; the nuclear program will be delayed, but will likely continue; the region will become more unstable but is unlikely to erupt into a full-blown war involving the United States.
But plenty of wild cards are in the deck.
First, as strategists and military planners always warn, the 'enemy gets a vote.' The Iranians may respond in ways the U.S. does not expect. The classic wargaming mistake is to assume that your opponent will respond in ways that fit nicely with your own plans and capabilities. But the Iranians have had a long time to think about this eventuality; they may have schemes ready that the U.S. has not foreseen. (Why not spread around radiological debris, for example, and then blame the Americans for a near-disaster?) Trump has issued a warning to Iran not to react, but what might count as 'reacting?'
Second, we cannot know the subsequent effects of an American attack. For now, other Middle Eastern regimes may be relieved to see Iran's nuclear clock turned back. But if the Iranian regime survives and continues even a limited nuclear program, those same nations may sour on what they will see as an unsuccessful plan hatched in Jerusalem and carried out by Washington.
Diplomacy elsewhere will likely suffer. The Russians have been pounding Ukraine with even greater viciousness than usual all week, and now may wave away the last of Trump's feckless attempts to end the war. Other nations might see American planes flying over Iran and think that the North Koreans had the right idea all along: Assemble a few crude nuclear weapons as fast as you can to deter further attempts to end your regime.
Finally, the chances for misperception and accidents are now higher than they were yesterday. In 1965, the United States widened the war in Southeast Asia after two purported attacks from North Vietnam; the Americans were not sure at the time that both of them had actually happened, and as it turns out, one of them probably did not. The region, moreover, is full of opportunities for screw-ups and mistakes: If Trump continues action against Iran, he will need excellent intelligence and tight organization at the Pentagon.
And this is where the American strikes were really a gamble: They were undertaken by a White House national security team staffed by unqualified appointees, some of whom—including the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense himself—Trump has reportedly frozen out of his inner circle. (Given that those agencies are run by Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth, it is both terrifying and a relief to know that they have no real influence.) The American defense and intelligence communities are excellent, but they can only function for so long without competent leadership.
Trump has had preternatural luck as a president: He has survived scandals, major policy failures, and even impeachment, events that would have ended other administrations.The American planes dropped their payloads and returned home safely. So he might skate past this war, even if it will be hard to explain to the MAGA faithful who believed him, as they always do, that he was the peace candidate. But perhaps the biggest and most unpredictable gamble Trump took in bombing Iran was to send American forces into harm's way in the Middle East with a team that was never supposed to be in charge of an actual war.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

8 minutes ago

• USA Today

Why did US bomb Iran? In Trump's vibes war, it's impossible to trust anyone.

At least the last time a Republican president got America involved in a military quagmire in the Middle East he had the decency to cook up a bunch of phony reasons beforehand. The day after President Donald Trump launched attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and swept an unprepared nation into another Middle-Eastern conflict, Vice President JD Vance said the most ludicrous thing imaginable. Asked if he and Trump trust the U.S. intelligence community and its assessments, which had been that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon, Vance replied: 'Of course we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts.' Your instincts? Trump and Vance just marched America into a potential war because the vibes felt real nuclear-weapon-y? Trump didn't even take time to lie to Americans before bombing Iran At least the last time a Republican president got America involved in a military quagmire in the Middle East he had the decency to cook up a bunch of phony reasons beforehand. These guys just hauled off and dropped bombs and now want us to sit back and trust their hunch that it was the right move. In 2003, former Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the trouble of holding up a blue-capped vial of fake anthrax before the U.N. Security Council to back up the Bush administration's claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction. (Spoiler alert: Nope!) All we got from the Trump team was a lie that the president was going to ponder the bombing option for a spell, and then a stupid Truth Social post saying the bombing had happened. No congressional approval. No case made to the American people. Just bombs away, then a bunch of people known for their dishonesty trotting out and saying, 'Trust us, this was a good thing.' Trump just bombed Iran. We deserve to know why, but don't count on the truth. | Opinion Marco Rubio, like much of the Trump administration, hates intelligence Pressed on CBS' 'Face the Nation' to explain what intelligence led the administration to think bombs needed to be dropped, a frustrated Secretary of State Marco Rubio uttered three words that perfectly encapsulate President Trump, his cabinet and the entire MAGA movement: 'Forget about intelligence.' They should put that on hats. Vance swears Americas is only a little bit at war with Iran Vance continued to stumble about during his June 22 interviews, telling NBC News: 'We do not want war with Iran. We actually want peace.' Because nothing says 'we want peace' quite like firing a couple dozen tomahawk missiles at a country before walloping it with more than a dozen 30,000-pound bombs known as 'Massive Ordnance Penetrators.' On ABC, the duplicitous Mr. Vance made this whiplash-inducing claim: 'We are not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' So we don't want war, we want peace, but we're at war with Iran's nuclear program, but we're not at war with Iran. That's starting to sound a bit like, 'I want to love you but you keep making me drop bombs on you, so it's all your fault.' Opinion: From massive protests to a puny parade, America really let Donald Trump down Of course this Age of Stupidity brought us a war based on vibes And in the same NBC News interview, he barfed out this gem: 'I empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents.' Buddy, right now we have a dumb president. We have a president who still hasn't accepted he lost the 2020 presidential election, one who misspelled his own name in a June 22 social-media post that read: 'The GREAT B-2 pilots have just landed, safely, in Missouri. Thank you for a job well done!!! DONAKD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!' Thank you, Donakd! We have a president who, just hours after his Defense secretary said the Iran mission 'was not, has not been about regime change,' posted this: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' MIGA? Those are the words of a dumb president. And he's the same president who in his previous term took the word of Russian President Vladimir Putin over information from America's intelligence community. Choosing who to trust here is nearly impossible So what are the Russians who Trump trusts saying about America's bombing of Iran? Russian Security Council deputy chairman Dmitry Medvedev said it didn't accomplish much and the nation's nuclear sites suffered only minor damage. 'The enrichment of nuclear material – and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons – will continue,' Medvedev said on social media. 'A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.' So who do we trust? The Russians, who Trump apparently trusts? Rubio, the guy telling us to forget intelligence? Vance, the guy who wants us to roll with the vibes? Trump, the guy who seems deathly allergic to honesty? If you elect liars, you're going to get lied to It's simple: We can't trust anyone in this administration. They're liars and sycophants from top to bottom, either too lazy or too full of themselves to even pretend they can present a clear case for this risky military action. If Trump's bombing of Iran proves successful – and I, of course, hope it does – it'll be dumb luck. But if it leads to disaster, it'll be exactly what anyone paying attention to these reckless hucksters predicted. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

The Hill

9 minutes ago

• The Hill

Pakistan nominates Trump for Nobel Peace Prize, then condemns strikes on Iran

Pakistan on Sunday condemned U.S. strikes against Iran, one day after Islamabad announced it had nominated President Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize for his mediation of a ceasefire between Pakistan and India last month. Pakistan said the U.S. attacks violated norms of international law and voiced support for Iran's right to retaliate in self-defense. 'Pakistan condemns the US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities which follow the series of attacks by Israel. We are gravely concerned at the possible further escalation of tensions in the region,' the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said in a statement. 'The unprecedented escalation of tension and violence, owing to ongoing aggression against Iran is deeply disturbing. Any further escalation of tensions will have severely damaging implications for the region and beyond.' Pakistan on Saturday announced it was nominating Trump for a Nobel prize for the president's 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis.' The government praised Trump for 'pragmatic diplomacy and effective peace-building' and added that Islamabad was hopeful the president would also resolve ongoing crises in the Middle East, including humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and 'the deteriorating escalation involving Iran.' Trump has lamented not getting a Nobel prize during his first term. On June 20, he posted a long missive on Truth Social listing different diplomatic actions from his first term and some from his second term that he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing.' 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' he wrote.

Boston Globe

12 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Tarnished by Oct. 7, Netanyahu's legacy may be reshaped by war with Iran

'Netanyahu has proven that he is a phoenix,' said veteran Israeli journalist and Netanyahu biographer Mazal Mualem. Advertisement Netanyahu's troubled legacy is granted a lifeline The war is far from won. Israel is still vulnerable to Iranian attacks, and whatever political boost Netanyahu gains from the latest developments could dissipate by elections scheduled for next year. He is the same polarizing leader he was yesterday. Internationally, he faces an arrest warrant for charges of war crimes in Gaza. He is widely reviled across the Arab world. And after nearly two years of regionwide conflict, many critics see him as a warmonger responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East. But domestically, where Netanyahu's eyes are always focused, his legacy has been granted a lifeline. Advertisement Many Israelis are attuned to Netanyahu's campaign against Iran's nuclear program, which they view as a major threat to their country and are therefore relieved by the direct involvement of the U.S. military. 'Netanyahu is seen as a very divisive and destructive leader. He is seen as someone who talks a lot and doesn't do anything,' said Aviv Bushinsky, a former Netanyahu aide. 'Today, Netanyahu redeemed himself, big time.' In an early morning video statement after the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Netanyahu could barely contain a smile as he thanked President Donald Trump. He said the intervention would 'change history.' It's a stunning turnaround for an Israeli leader who critics and analysts largely wrote off in the days after Oct. 7, when he presided over the deadliest attack in Israel's history. Many hold Netanyahu personally responsible for overseeing policies that enabled Hamas to retain power in Gaza for many years and build up a formidable arsenal. Netanyahu has been buoyed occasionally since then by military successes against Hamas and the Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. But with the Gaza war dragging on with no end in sight, and dozens of Israeli hostages still in captivity, his approval ratings have remained low. The week-old assault on Iran, highlighted by Sunday's U.S. attack, grants Netanyahu a chance for salvation. Netanyahu's yearslong focus on Iran The war caps a yearslong focus — some would say obsession — by Netanyahu on Iran and its nuclear program. Since his first term as prime minister in the 1990s, and throughout his current, nearly uninterrupted 16-year rule, he has made challenging Iran's nuclear program his life's work. Advertisement Netanyahu has long portrayed Iran as an existential threat — pointing not only to its nuclear program, but also its development of long-range missiles aimed at Israel and support for hostile militant groups on Israel's borders. Iran became a repeated theme in his speeches to the Israeli and international public. He famously hoisted a cartoon bomb from the dais of U.N. General Assembly as he accused Iran of developing a nuclear weapon. Iran insists the program is for civilian purposes. At the same time, Netanyahu has made no mention of Israel's own widely suspected nuclear weapons arsenal. This satellite image provided by Maxar Technologies shows damage at the Fordo enrichment facility in Iran after US strikes on Sunday. Uncredited/Associated Press Netanyahu took significant diplomatic risks to pursue his crusade, including with a 2015 speech to Congress that was organized by Republican lawmakers, angering the Obama administration. During the speech, he railed against a U.S.-led deal on Iran's nuclear program just as negotiators were wrapping up its details. Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the agreement during his first term. Some critics say that it was Netanyahu's laser focus on Iran, and the military and intelligence resources devoted to it, that blinded the Israeli leader and the defense establishment to the threat Hamas in Gaza. Hamas' attack is a stain on Netanyahu's legacy Hamas' attack, in which 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken hostage, blindsided Israel. Netanyahu, who likes to portray himself as a security hawk and the only true guardian of Israel, is seen by many as having promoted a failed strategy in the years preceding the Oct. 7 attack by sending huge amounts of aid into in Gaza under the misconception that Hamas was deterred. Palestinians celebrate by a destroyed Israeli tank at the border fence between Israel and the Gaza Strip, east of Khan Younis, during a surprise attack on Israel, Saturday, Oct. 7, 2023. Hassan Eslaiah/Associated Press In fact, the Palestinian militant group would stage a brutal assault that would crush Israel's vaunted defenses and change the course of history. In the aftermath of Hamas' attack, Netanyahu's public support plummeted. Advertisement Netanyahu shrugged off accountability for Hamas' attacks, pointing a finger at his security chiefs and rejecting demands for a public inquiry into the failures. He says he will answer tough questions about his role after the war, now in its 21st month. Any political boost from the war could fade by elections Netanyahu's work is not done. The war in Gaza grinds on, and Netanyahu still dreams of seeing a normalization deal between Israel and Arab powerhouse Saudi Arabia as part of his legacy. The question remains whether Netanyahu will rebound politically from the Iran war. Polls taken last week showed that Netanyahu would still struggle to form a coalition if elections were held today. Even if he gets a bump from Sunday's U.S. attack, it's not clear how long that might last. Bushinsky compared Netanyahu's potential political predicament to a world leader he likes to compare himself to, Winston Churchill, who, after leading the allies in triumphantly defeating the Nazis in World War II, did not get reelected in a 1945 vote in part because public priorities shifted dramatically. 'Bibi may be 'King of Israel,' Bushinsky said, using a nickname for Netanyahu popular among his supporters, 'but even a king has his limits.'