The United States Bombed Iran. What Comes Next?
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
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 back channels that these strikes were, basically, a one-and-done, and that no further U.S. action is forthcoming.
(In a strange moment, Trump 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 into 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 Strait 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 war-gaming 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 whether both of these attacks had actually happened, and as it turns out, one of them probably had not. The Middle East, moreover, is full of opportunities for screwups 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 positions are held by Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth, respectively, it is both terrifying and a relief to know that they may have little real influence.) The American defense and intelligence communities are excellent, but they can function for only so long without competent leadership. Trump has had preternatural luck as 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, when he told them that he was the peace candidate. But perhaps the biggest and most unpredictable gamble Trump took in bombing Iran was sending 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.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
FTC approves Omnicom, IPG merger but says they can't coordinate to bar ads based on politics
The Federal Trade Commission on Monday said it will approve Omnicom Group's $13.5 billion acquisition of rival The Interpublic Group, but only if the agencies agree they won't bar ads based on politics. Why it matters: A consent order that addresses the possibility of political collusion is rare, and speaks to the hyper-political climate facing the business community. The merger between Omnicom and IPG will create the largest global ad agency holding group by revenue. The deal is still pending approval from regulators in the U.K. Zoom in: The proposed consent order imposes restrictions "that prevent Omnicom from engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers' political or ideological viewpoints." It also prohibits agencies from accepting requests to direct advertising spend to a certain media publisher "based on political or ideological viewpoints or political content." Agencies are also prohibited from declining to do business with an advertiser based on their political or ideological viewpoints. Between the lines: Advertisers are still allowed to dictate where their ads appear. Agencies will need to act with caution to avoid accusations of collusion or bias when considering an advertiser's targeting requests. Of note: Earlier this year, the Trump administration fired the FTC's two Democratic commissioners. The remaining three commissioners are all Republican. The consent order passed by a 2-0-1 commission vote, with commissioners Andrew N. Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak voting in favor of the measure, while commissioner Mark R. Meador recused himself. It's unusual for orders to be passed by two votes within the FTC, but it's valid. Yes, but: The consent order also contains fairly standard provisions barring anticompetitive coordination over conditions such as pricing, ad placement, and sponsorships, as well as helping execute advertisers' ad campaigns. Axios previously reported that despite concerns around politics, most of the FTC's inquiries into the merger with ad professionals were apolitical. Reality check: Regulators rarely put in place merger provisions that specifically bar this type of coordination, but political pressure around allegations of ad groups penalizing conservatives has gained steam. Last year, House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent letters to the CEOs of Omnicom and IPG as part of an antitrust investigation into whether ad agencies had colluded with the World Federation of Advertisers and the now defunct industry coalition Global Alliance for Responsible Media to boycott conservative media. Amid the chaos in Congress, the probe moved fully to the FTC, Axios reported last month. Jordan's investigation came months after he led a Congressional hearing about complaints that alleged GARM was colluding with ad-buying giant GroupM (now WPP Media) to discourage clients from buying ads in the Daily Wire because of its conservative politics. Last year, X sued the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for defamation, claiming one of its research reports contributed to an advertiser exodus. The FTC is now investigating the group over the same issue. What they're saying: "Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation's commerce and communication," Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. "Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate."
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
Democrats set to target multiple Senate GOP tax provisions
House Republicans are aiming to slash funding for the nonpartisan watchdog for waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government by nearly half in the next fiscal year, according to spending bill text released Sunday night. The House Appropriations subcommittee funding Congress and its support agencies, led by chairman David Valadao (R-Calif.), is set to mark up their fiscal 2026 measure Monday evening, with the full committee set to act Thursday. The Legislative Branch bill would provide $6.7 billion — $51 million below the current funding level, which was set in fiscal 2024. Per tradition, the House bill does not touch any Senate funding. 'Chairman Valadao's bill puts the American people first — in strengthening the institutions that represent them, protecting effective governance, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars,' said House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) in a statement. The deepest cuts in the bill are to the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress that would see a $396.5 million reduction from current levels to $415.4 million. GAO has served as the nation's chief investigator of wrongdoing at federal agencies for more than a century, but has been fighting for months as Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration have attempted to undercut its legal conclusions and independence. Now, they are attempting to shrink the agency into submission as it pursues nearly 40 investigations into whether the White House is illegally withholding, or 'impounding,' money Congress had previously approved. Also tucked into the bill is a major policy change that would eliminate the GAO's ability to bring civil action against the executive branch over impoundments of funds. 'GAO's work makes it possible for the legislative branch to hold government accountable,' said Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute. 'Congress needs independent expert advice, which is exactly what GAO provides.' Also on the chopping block is the Library of Congress, which is another legislative branch agency also engaged in a power struggle against intrusion by the Trump administration. The bill allocates $767.6 million for the Library of Congress, which is $84.5 million below the current funding level and $133.7 million below the FY26 request. 'This bill does nothing to safeguard against the growing levels of executive overreach into legislative branch agencies,' said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the legislative branch subcommittee. Some other key provisions in the GOP-written bill include: Capitol Police: The Capitol Police would see a $84.4 million boost to their funding under the bill, bringing the total to $891 million. Some lawmakers had asked for an increase in office funding for use for security, but the bill flat-funds the Members Representational Allowance, which can be used for some member security purposes. Member Pay: The bill would continue the member pay freeze that has been in effect since 2013, halting automatic cost of living increases that members of Congress are supposed to get under law. Gay marriage: The bill includes language that prohibits discrimination against any person who 'speaks, or acts' in accordance with a 'sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman.'
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
Was US Iran Mission Successful? - CNN This Morning with Audie Cornish - Podcast on CNN Audio
Was US Iran Mission Successful? CNN This Morning 48 mins This morning we explore the aftermath of the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The big question: Did they accomplish the goal of dismantling Iran's nuclear program? President Trump and his allies say yes. They're now warning Iran not to attack US forces.
