Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble

With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, US President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid — intervene militarily in a major foreign war.
The dramatic US 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 US 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.'
The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities. But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick.
Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator
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 programme.
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 US 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 programme may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over.
Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its programme 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 US-based organisation 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 programme 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 US 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 US strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions.
Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every US citizen or military member in the region would now 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.'
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 democratisation 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 US moral missions buried in Middle East sands.'
Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in 'disproportionate attacks' if it felt its survival was imperilled.
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 US inflationary affect, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies.
At the same time, Trump is already facing strong pushback 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 US 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, UN 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:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

IOL News

44 minutes ago

• IOL News

Zionacity: The Audacity of Eternal Victimhood

Explore the concept of 'Zionacity'—an ideological condition that elevates one group's trauma while diminishing the suffering of others. Image: IOL Zionacity, a term forged from Zionism and audacity, names an ideological condition of extreme exceptionalism, where one group's trauma is treated as sacred and untouchable, and all others' suffering is deemed either fabricated, deserved or irrelevant. It is a disorder of moral reasoning that weaponises grief into entitlement and reframes domination as divine right. But Zionacity is not confined to the Israeli settler state. It is a global psychosis, an exported belief system that afflicts settler-colonial logic across the world. In South Africa, it takes form in the behaviour of white Afrikaans landowners who frame their historic land theft as cultural inheritance, and their continued dominance as the right of a 'Christian civilisation'. Zionacity is the theological twin of every settler project that sanctifies conquest while vilifying resistance. This ideology operates beyond the geopolitical. It is also theological and psychological. It refuses reciprocity. It replaces solidarity with siege. It renames justice as hatred and peace as submission. Zionacity insists that one people's pain entitles them to unaccountable power, and that any challenge to this logic constitutes an existential threat. It is this ideological framework that justifies the mass bombing of Gaza, the starvation of civilians, and the flattening of hospitals and schools. It is what renders the shattered bodies of Palestinian children invisible to international law and morally irrelevant to Western media. It is desensitisation, it is dehumanisation, it is doctrinal. Zionacity erases empathy. It demands silence, obedience and allegiance parceled in guilt. It teaches the world that to mourn Palestinian lives is to betray Jewish ones. That to name Israeli war crimes is to defile the memory of Jewish trauma. It thrives on the falsehood that grief is a zero-sum game. That the suffering of the colonised must defer to the sensibilities of the coloniser. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ It is also an erasure of prophetic Judaism, the Judaism of resistance, of liberation theology, of standing with the oppressed. Zionacity is not Judaism. It is the death of that moral and spiritual legacy. The radical Jewish voices who once marched against apartheid, who stood for Palestinian rights, who dared to speak the truth, are now vilified, silenced or exiled from the public square. Zionacity is symbiotic with liberalism. The two work together like seasoned partners. Zionacity drops the bombs, and liberalism edits the headlines. Zionacity razes schools, and liberalism appeals to 'complexity'. The liberal mind is incapable of asymmetry. It will not say: one side occupies, bombs and kills with impunity. It must frame everything as 'tragic', 'complicated', 'both sides'. It weeps selectively for Palestinian victims — and only when their suffering can be extracted from the wider political landscape of resistance. There are no liberal tears for the victims of NATO bombs in Libya, of Saudi airstrikes in Yemen, of Israeli proxy wars against Iran, of the economic strangulation of Venezuela, of Western-backed terror in Syria, or for the dead in Donbas under years of shelling. Russia, China, Iran, Libya, Yemen — all are filed away under 'authoritarian regimes', their populations rendered unworthy of empathy. To the liberal mind, these people are not victims, but collateral in the fight for 'democracy'. They do not grieve them. They judge them. We saw this logic in South Africa too. It is the same liberalism that asked Black South Africans to 'move on' after apartheid, without land, justice or redress. It is the same liberalism that now asks Palestinians to condemn their own resistance before they are allowed to grieve. Liberalism demands civility from the oppressed, never justice. Zionacity claims not only the moral high ground but the exclusive right to self-defence. In its worldview, only Israel may respond to violence, and even to imagined threats, with overwhelming force. Palestinians are never granted this right. Their resistance is immediately criminalised, their anguish reframed as aggression. A settler-colonial logic underwrites this asymmetry. The occupier claims the right to defend stolen land, while the dispossessed are punished for refusing to be erased. Zionacity is theological settler-colonialism. It claims that God, not law or justice, grants the right to erase a people. It reframes mass displacement as security. It makes siege into necessity. It casts those demanding dignity as terrorists and those dropping bombs as victims. Not only does it reject the notion of universal rights, it weaponises their language for exclusion. It is not coincidental that the same states funding Israel's war machine backed apartheid South Africa, invaded Iraq and support proxy wars in Africa. Zionacity is embedded in the infrastructure of global power, in diplomacy, finance, surveillance, journalism, philanthropy and cultural production. Its arrogance lies in its assumption that the narrative is fixed. That if you control language, you control memory. That if you control memory, you erase responsibility. But from under the rubble, truth rises. From exiled Jewish thinkers, resistance echoes. From global youth movements, the word Palestine is spoken with clarity and resolve. To name Zionacity is not antisemitism. It is moral courage. It is to refuse to let one trauma sanctify all future violence. It is to reject the demand that empathy be selective, conditional and censored. Zionacity is not just a doctrine. It is a global apparatus of control. But it is also brittle. Its strength lies in silence. Its weakness lies in exposure. To resist Zionacity is not simply political. It is human. It is the insistence that no people, anywhere, are chosen for impunity. And that no child's life, anywhere, is disposable. If Zionism and its audacity remain unable to recognise the full humanity of others — whether Palestinian, Iranian, Yemeni, Libyan, Russian or Chinese — then the world which it victimises with its cruel impunity will be forced to declare unfettered war against it, not just on its weapons, but on its worldview. For an ideology that refuses empathy becomes a death cult, and like all death cults, Zionism will eventually devour its own children. * Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker and social critic. She writes on decoloniality, media and political resistance across the Global South. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

eNCA

an hour ago

• eNCA

Trump hints at Iran regime change

JOHANNESBURG -US president Donald Trump has hinted at a potential regime change in Iran, after attacks on three Iranian nuclear sites. Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, questioning whether the current regime, is able to "Make Iran Great Again'. His position contrasts with some his officials, who have been saying the military strike was not aimed at regime change.

IOL News

3 hours ago

• IOL News

Mixed views of US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites

One moment, Donald Trump was saying that he needed 2 more weeks to think about the next step, then, suddenly, 6 B-2 bomber jets are flying into Iran and dropping bunker-busting bombs- obliterating Iran's proudly protected Nuclear sites, deep underneath the hardened, mountainous facility. The World at large is a much safer place than it was 2 days ago, but Trump's critics are quick to jump to conclusions that there must be some political motivation for this attack on Iran's nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. Depending on where you stand with Donald Trump as a mere person, or what your ideological or religious views are, the way that you reason and the conclusions that you will reach will be directly linked to your belief systems. I do not believe that when a regime warns of your annihilation and keeps enriching uranium to weapons grade, I must be so naive to think that they have just been saying this for fun, for several decades now. Iran's ties with North Korea and Russia, as well as China, are enough to make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. Some would say that the US should've never joined this war on terror, others would say that Trump betrayed his voters, while some would call Netanyahu a murderer and all kinds of ugly names, when in fact, both Trump and Netanyahu have proven to be men of truth, men of honour and above all, men of extreme strength. I cannot think of anything stronger and more admirable than 2 godly men who stand up in power, for the Free World, doing what no other nation has ever managed to do- striking Iran in its backyard, so quickly, that even the Ayatolla had no idea what had just happened.