Trump's decision to strike Iran marks his 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, U.S. 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.'
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 US to deliver the potentially crowning blow.
03:39
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 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 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.
Iranian reaction to the US strikes on its nuclear sites
01:16
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 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 now be legitimate targets.
Early on Sunday, Iran's foreign ministry issued a statement warning that Tehran 'considers it its right to resist with all its might against U.S. military aggression.'
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 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 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 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 impact, 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

LeMonde

an hour ago

• LeMonde

The Heritage Foundation sets its sights on Europe

Behind the thick velvet curtains of the Cercle de l'Union Interalliée, a lavish Parisian club on Rue du Faubourg-Saint-Honoré, a high-profile political reception was taking place, just a stone's throw from the Elysée presidential palace. Ties were mandatory for the guests who, on the evening of May 26, gathered to soak up "the future of conservatism in France and in the West," as promised by the invitation card. The host was an American, unknown to the French public, who holds a piece of the United States' destiny in his hands. Kevin Roberts presides over the powerful Heritage Foundation, the most influential conservative think tank in the orbit of Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement. It paved the way for Donald Trump's return to power by providing him with the highly radical Project 2025, the unofficial blueprint for his term in office. Bald, wearing a pin of Heritage's Liberty Bell-inspired logo on his jacket, Roberts, 50, displayed the articulateness of a university professor. Born in southern Louisiana, he has been one of the most zealous ideologues of Trump's second presidency, determined to "burn" everything – he has a penchant for radical metaphors – in order to reshape America into a nationalist and reactionary version of itself. Since 2021, he has led the Heritage Foundation and its 350 employees. The historian by training earns nearly $1 million a year in this role. He is a regular at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's residence, and has developed a genuine friendship with JD Vance, the 40-year-old nationalist-Catholic vice president, who is idolized by the far right on both sides of the Atlantic. Roberts is above all one of the unofficial envoys for a major objective of Trump's second term: weaving a network with "civilizational allies in Europe," as the US State Department put it in a strategic memo published on May 27. The document mentions the Trump team's intent to promote their vision of a "shared cultural heritage," stretching from Paris to Warsaw. At the end of May, Roberts traveled to France for the first time, with that very goal in mind.

France 24

an hour ago

• France 24

Muslim countries urge end to Israel's 'aggression' against Iran

Arch-rivals Israel and Iran have been at war since June 13 when Israel, claiming Tehran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb, launched a wave of devastating air strikes, killing top army commanders and scientists. Iran immediately retaliated, and the two sides have been trading barrages since. The ministers "condemn firmly the aggression of Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran, stress the urgent need to stop Israeli attacks and their great concern regarding this dangerous escalation", said an OIC statement It was published at the end of a OIC meeting in Istanbul this weekend. It made no direct reference to the US bombardment of Iran's key nuclear facilities early Sunday, after President Donald Trump decided to join Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear programme. But the OIC did denounce the "destabilization policies of Israel in the region and its recent attacks on Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, constituting flagrant (a) violation of sovereignty and security of these countries and international law". Attending the OIC meeting, Iran's top diplomat Abbas Araghchi said Sunday morning that the United States and Israel had "breached a major red line". Founded in 1969, the 57-member OIC sees its role as protecting the interests of the Muslim world and increasing Muslim solidarity.

Euronews

an hour ago

• Euronews

Exclusive: Israel blasts EU report claiming Gaza human rights breaches

Israel has blasted the EU-Israel Association Agreement (EUSR) review, saying 'this report and its conclusions should not be taken seriously or used as a basis for any future actions or conversations', in a letter from the country's foreign ministry to the EU seen by Euronews on Sunday. 'Decency would dictate addressing the report's shortcomings and dismissing it in its entirety,' the letter, sent to the Commission and External Action Service, concludes. The EU-Israel Association Agreement review released on Friday said that Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip indicate a breach of the human rights provisions contained in its Association Agreement with the European Union. The issue is set to be considered by foreign ministers meeting on Monday. Citing a collection of findings by independent international organisations, the highly anticipated review from the bloc's diplomatic service said it found "indications" that Israel breached its human rights obligations with actions in Gaza. The breach stems from Israel's offensive on Gaza and the stringent conditions applied to the deliveries of humanitarian aid, which have stoked fears of widespread famine among Palestinians living in the densely populated enclave. In the letter seen by Euronews, the Israeli foreign ministry expressed its 'astonishment' that the report disregarded 'our detailed response to the questions submitted to us'. The letter starts with a presentation of what it calls 'the strategic reality Israel is facing', detailing how it is 'fighting a war on seven fronts.' 'It is against this backdrop – Israel's combat with a host of brutal enemies - that the EUSR was tasked with doing a 'rush job', compiling a biased and extremely one-sided summary of many anti-Israeli voices and documents into a so-called 'honest report' for the Member States of the EU,' the letter states. The Israeli foreign ministry letter focuses on what it calls 'two failures' of the EUSR report, claiming that it 'fails to take into account the context' and 'crucial facts' the October 7 attacks followed by 'the ongoing attempt by Iran and its proxies to bring about the annihilation of the Jewish state'. 'A report that opens with an admission that it lacks the ability to verify its own statements, or even the mandate to address the numerous terror attacks by Palestinians against Israel, cannot be taken seriously,' the letter says. The letter claims that the EUSR report 'fails morally' by neglecting to address any damage inflicted on Israeli civilians' by Hamas' control of the Gaza strip and its actions against Israelis, including what it calls 'the proven complicity of UN bodies such as UNRWA.' 'The report aims to deny Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism. It does not cite any of the many positive actions undertaken by Israel in the humanitarian field and neglects to mention the continuous refusal by Hamas of a US-brokered hostage deal (the 'Witkoff Proposal') which Israel has agreed to,' the letter says. Secondly, the Israeli foreign ministry letter claims that the EUSR report also 'fails methodologically'. No opportunity to defend itself, Israel claims 'Israel was not given an opportunity to defend itself against the extreme accusations mounted on it. Regretfully, even a person facing dismissal from a job, receives more leeway to state his or her case, than the complete disregard the EUSR has shown toward the objective facts and evidence of the State of Israel," the letter claims. The EUSR did not adhere to due process, it alleges, choosing not to engage Israel in dialogue over the report. The EUSR also did not allow Israeli information to be included in the report; and in fact, even when Israel thoroughly detailed its position in communication– offering detailed answers on several topics - the information presented was neither added nor addressed in the report,' the letter states. The letter insists on 'Israel's Compliance with International Law', and claims that 'a simple dialogue with Israeli authorities could have made these facts clear. Israel is a democratic state abiding by IHL and international law, while fighting to survive in a region void of democracy and full of terrorism and radicalism. Its actions should be judged fairly and honestly, a process at which the report in question has failed.' 'Throughout the war against Hamas, Israel has facilitated the transfer of large quantities of humanitarian aid into Gaza, even under fire,' the letter says in response to the EUSR report, which speaks about the blockade of humanitarian assistance, military strikes against hospitals, the forced displacement of the Palestinian population, mass arrests, arbitrary detentions, the expansion of settlements, which are illegal under international law, in the Occupied Territories, and the violence committed by settlers. According to the EUSR report, the violations are described as numerous and serious. The internal review exercise was launched last month at the request of 17 countries, led by the Netherlands, to determine whether Israel was still complying with Article 2 of the Association Agreement, which states bilateral relations "shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this agreement". The Israeli foreign ministry response concludes that the EUSR report 'is absurd and reflects an unprecedented process directed at a democratic state in the midst of war,' and that it 'completely ignores the circumstances, as well as the substantive comments and responses provided by Israel.' The stern response by Israel's foreign ministry appears to echo the statements made by Israel's ambassador to the EU and NATO Haim Regev, on Thursday 19 June. In an interview with Euronews, ambassador Regev was clear and firm about his government's current interactions with the European Union on the crisis with Iran and about Israel's actions in Gaza, saying 'we hear different tones, but at the end of the road we see and we feel the support.' The Israeli government has 'a continuous and intensive interaction' with the top EU institutions in Brussels, but 'of course it is complicated when it comes to have one position in the Union composed of 27 member states,' the Israeli diplomat said. 'There is a war right now and Israel is actually leading this war against Iran, that this is the war also for the benefit, for the long run of Europe. So this is not the time right now to examine or to push things or to try to put obstacles in the Israel-EU relations," Regev concluded. The Commission and External Action Service have been approached for comment.