Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble
WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - 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.
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."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Every time Starmer wants us to think the best of Trump, the US president proves him wrong
Just five days ago Sir Keir Starmer sat down with the travelling pack of UK journalists at the G7 in Canada and assured them and their readers that Donald Trump would not attack Iran. He said:"There is nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict, on the contrary, the G7 statement was about de-escalation. "I think what he said was he wanted to go beyond a ceasefire effectively and end the conflict. And I think he's right about that. I mean, a ceasefire is always a means to an end. "That is consistent with what we agreed around the table yesterday. And throughout the dinner yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was in relation to the words that were then issued immediately after that, pretty soon after the dinner.' He made a point of being at the table sitting next to Trump to underline that his reading of what the US president would do was correct. At that point Trump had left the resort in Alberta early and was back in the White House. Just hours later he was posting threats to Iran on Truth Social. Then last night, five days after Starmer addressed journalists, he authorised the bombing of Iran having given them two weeks on Friday to get back to the negotiating table. The question though is: Why does the prime minister just keep getting it so wrong about what the US president will say and do? This is not the first time that Sir Keir has suggested Trump will do one thing and then the US president has done the opposite. We can go back to Starmer's cosy chat in the Oval Office when the two had their first formal meeting as prime minister and president in March. At the time and just before handing Trump the invitation from the King for a state visit, Sir Keir said he wanted 'to thank you for changing the conversation on the war in Ukraine.' It seemed an odd phrase even then given that Trump seemed to be dead set on forcing Ukraine to accept a peace on Russia's terms. But it looked far worse 24 hours later after vice president J.D. Vance and president Trump berated and humiliated Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky in the same Oval Office forcing him to leave their meeting. Then in May Sir Keir and President Trump were on the opposite ends of a public zoom call congratulating each other for the trade deal they had just struck over the White House's global tariff regime. 'Donald, thank you for your leadership,' the prime minister said, emphasising the first name terms. All seemed well until later in the month when Trump announced steel tariffs would be 50 per cent, not 25 per cent, and it turned out the UK/ US trade deal had not actually been implemented. It took til last week to get most of the deal implemented apart from steel which is still subject to discussions with the UK tariff remaining at 25 per cent with a hope of zero per cent still on the table. At every turn it appears that the prime minister wants us to think the best of Trump only for the US president to be apparently determined to prove him quickly wrong. It may be wishful thinking on Sir Keir's part. After all, he is constantly hoping Trump will do the right thing. There is a case to point out that what else could he say in these circumstances especially as his primary diplomatic policy appears to be to assuage Trump's ego and butter the US president up as much as possible. To be fair, Starmer has had more success than most on the international stage and he rightly speaks of his 'warm relationship' with the US president who in turn has gone out of his way to praise the prime minister's leadership. There is a sense from a popular American phrase of 'speaking things into existence', in that if you want something to happen it is better to say it will happen and hope that is enough to ensure it does. But perhaps it is because of the quixotic nature of the US president. He thinks one thing at one moment and then changes his mind when he leaves the room. It could be all of the above. But even those who wanted to believe Starmer last week thought he was being extremely naive in suggesting the president was pursuing de-escalation. It all reflects a complex international situation for the prime minister in his first year and one which is only going to heat up further. The problem is that our prime minister seems incapable of guessing what the biggest international player and UK's most important ally will do next.
Rhyl Journal
14 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Diplomacy not an option, warns Iran after US attacks key nuclear sites
Abbas Araghchi said while the 'door to diplomacy' should always be open, 'this is not the case right now'. The United States attacked three sites in Iran overnight, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear programme, and President Donald Trump claimed the facilities had been 'completely and fully obliterated'. The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped. Mr Araghchi said: 'The warmongering, lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far reaching implications of its act of aggression.' He said 'there is no red line' that the US has not crossed, adding: 'The most dangerous one was what happened only last night when they crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities only.' Satellite images taken on Sunday show damage to the mountainside at the underground site at Fordo. The images, by Planet Labs PBC, show the once-brown mountain now has parts turned grey and its contours appear slightly different than in previous images, suggesting a blast threw up debris around the site. That suggests the use of specialised American bunker-buster bombs on the facility. Light grey smoke also hung in the air. Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. It is not clear whether the US will continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a nine-day war with Iran. Mr Trump acted without congressional authorisation, and he warned there will be additional strikes if Tehran retaliates against US forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. Iran's foreign ministry said Washington had 'betrayed diplomacy' with the military strikes, and that 'the US has itself launched a dangerous war against Iran'. Its statement added: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its right to resist with full force against US military aggression and the crimes committed by this rogue regime, and to defend Iran's security and national interests.' Hours after the American attacks, Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard said it launched a barrage of 40 missiles at Israel, including its Khorramshahr-4, which can carry multiple warheads. Israeli authorities reported that more than 80 people suffered mostly minor injuries, though one multi-storey building in Tel Aviv was significantly damaged, with its entire facade torn away to expose the apartments inside. Houses across the street were almost completely destroyed. Following the Iranian barrage, Israel's military said it had 'swiftly neutralised' the Iranian missile launchers that had fired, and that it had begun a series of strikes towards military targets in western Iran. Iran has maintained its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only, and US intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Mr Trump and Israeli leaders have argued Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The decision to directly involve the US in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel that significantly degraded Iran's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, and damaged its nuclear enrichment facilities. But US and Israeli officials have said American B-2 stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb that only they have been configured to carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear programme buried deep underground. Mr Trump appears to have made the calculation – at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republicans – that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear programme, perhaps permanently. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Mr Trump said in a post on social media. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordo. All planes are safely on their way home.' — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2025 Mr Trump later added: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Israel announced on Sunday that it had closed its airspace to both inbound and outbound flights in the wake of the US attacks. US officials said the attack used bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, while submarines launched about 30 Tomahawk missiles. The decision to attack was a risky one for Mr Trump, who won the White House partially on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. But he has vowed he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and he had initially hoped the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear programme peacefully.
South Wales Argus
14 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Diplomacy not an option, warns Iran after US attacks key nuclear sites
Abbas Araghchi said while the 'door to diplomacy' should always be open, 'this is not the case right now'. The United States attacked three sites in Iran overnight, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear programme, and President Donald Trump claimed the facilities had been 'completely and fully obliterated'. The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped. Mr Araghchi said: 'The warmongering, lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far reaching implications of its act of aggression.' He said 'there is no red line' that the US has not crossed, adding: 'The most dangerous one was what happened only last night when they crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities only.' Satellite images taken on Sunday show damage to the mountainside at the underground site at Fordo. The images, by Planet Labs PBC, show the once-brown mountain now has parts turned grey and its contours appear slightly different than in previous images, suggesting a blast threw up debris around the site. That suggests the use of specialised American bunker-buster bombs on the facility. Light grey smoke also hung in the air. Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. It is not clear whether the US will continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a nine-day war with Iran. Iran targeted Tel Aviv with missiles in the hours after the US attack (Oded Balilty/AP) Mr Trump acted without congressional authorisation, and he warned there will be additional strikes if Tehran retaliates against US forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. Iran's foreign ministry said Washington had 'betrayed diplomacy' with the military strikes, and that 'the US has itself launched a dangerous war against Iran'. Its statement added: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its right to resist with full force against US military aggression and the crimes committed by this rogue regime, and to defend Iran's security and national interests.' Hours after the American attacks, Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard said it launched a barrage of 40 missiles at Israel, including its Khorramshahr-4, which can carry multiple warheads. Israeli authorities reported that more than 80 people suffered mostly minor injuries, though one multi-storey building in Tel Aviv was significantly damaged, with its entire facade torn away to expose the apartments inside. Houses across the street were almost completely destroyed. Following the Iranian barrage, Israel's military said it had 'swiftly neutralised' the Iranian missile launchers that had fired, and that it had begun a series of strikes towards military targets in western Iran. President Donald Trump addressed the nation from the White House following the air strikes (Carlos Barria/pool/AP) Iran has maintained its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only, and US intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Mr Trump and Israeli leaders have argued Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The decision to directly involve the US in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel that significantly degraded Iran's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, and damaged its nuclear enrichment facilities. But US and Israeli officials have said American B-2 stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb that only they have been configured to carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear programme buried deep underground. Mr Trump appears to have made the calculation – at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republicans – that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear programme, perhaps permanently. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Mr Trump said in a post on social media. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordo. All planes are safely on their way home.' Mr Trump later added: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Israel announced on Sunday that it had closed its airspace to both inbound and outbound flights in the wake of the US attacks. US officials said the attack used bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, while submarines launched about 30 Tomahawk missiles. The decision to attack was a risky one for Mr Trump, who won the White House partially on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. But he has vowed he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and he had initially hoped the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear programme peacefully.
