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.'
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.
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 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 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 Organization 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.'
'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 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 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 US 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 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

Arab News

an hour ago

• Arab News

Conflict provides no honor or glory, just remorse

Tens of thousands of civilians are being killed because they were born in the wrong place and simply have the 'wrong' passport. Few people would choose to live in a state of war, or in a place where they are denied freedoms other countries provide. That is not to say that people do not want to be from the countries they live in, but they want their children to be educated and they want their families to be fed, safe and sheltered. According to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, 'an estimated over 940,000 people were killed by direct post-9/11 war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan between 2001-2023. Of these, more than 432,000 were civilians.' Since this report was released in 2023, there have been at least two major conflicts in Sudan and Gaza, in which tens of thousands more civilians have been killed, bringing that total to more than 500,000 — there are cities with smaller populations than that. Who knows what the situation between Iran and Israel will bring? Civilians overall do not appear to choose to go to war — some support it, others do not. But it is those in government, the people in charge, that make the decision to go to fight. None of us chose to be born where we were — that is up to nature. If we are lucky, nature puts us in a country that feels like home and provides peace and security. But around the world, there are many places where people are not so fortunate. They may love their nationality, but do so in the face of oppressive dictatorships or neighbors determined to shift the boundaries. On more than one occasion, I have heard Westerners ask why people living under oppressive regimes appear to simply sit back and take it. It is easy to ask such questions when you live in a house with clean running water, a door that locks and a reliable power source; where you can speak freely and generally live without fear of retribution. These people asking for such courage are often the same people who get angry when their city's streets are blocked by a peaceful demonstration, where protesters are not confronted with a volley of live bullets. It would be reasonable to draw the conclusion that children who grow up in war zones, or under the rule of oppressive regimes, are more inclined to take up arms later in life — indeed there is evidence that shows this to be the case. But in 2016, I went to Lebanon to see the work being done to help educate Syrian schoolchildren who had fled their country with their parents after the civil war began. I spoke to several children about what they thought their futures held for them and not one of them said they wanted to take up arms and fight. There was no talk of revenge. They aspired to be doctors, teachers, engineers — the list was endless. Several of the children said they wanted to be able to return to Syria and help rebuild their country. I have not met many people who want to go to war. If we are lucky, nature puts us in a country that feels like home and provides peace and security. Peter Harrison There was a time when dying for your country was seen as honorable. Most now accept that they can help more when alive, rather than dead. In 2007, I was at the Kajaki hydroelectric plant in Afghanistan working for a regional newspaper from southwest Britain. A worker asked why I was there. I told him I was there as a newspaper journalist working as the defense reporter. He said that one after another, people from the West (generally), be they politicians or media, would arrive, take photos, ask him the same questions about how he felt about the Taliban and the International Security Assistance Force, and then leave. 'But nothing ever changes,' he said. Of course, he was right to say this. Did I seriously believe it would make any difference for me to report on what I saw was happening in his country? Of course not. Like every other, I would write my story, leave and work on the next one. In Afghanistan, there were many 'hearts and minds' projects aimed at creating a community. Market stall areas were created and police stations were painted pink to make them 'more inviting' — usually ideas cultivated by foreign nongovernmental organizations. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the Afghanistan war — military and civilians — and this man's country was eventually handed back to the Taliban, who brought back their highly restrictive form of rule. I have no clue what happened to him. My hope is that, rather than being seen as someone who might have collaborated with Western forces, he was seen as an essential worker at the power plant, providing electricity to all. History is littered with wars largely started as the result of one ideology or another, often under the claim of fighting terror or another force of evil — but most trace back to an ideology that favors the few. We live in a time where narcissism and gaslighting have never seemed more apparent, whether at home, in the workplace or among world leaders. It is not a new phenomenon, but social media and the acceptance of its unsolicited, often unverified, content has become an enabler of these people's toxicity. And while, on a personal level, this can seem miserable and debilitating at first, it is something most people eventually shake off. At a global level, it can prove to be deadly. The millions in Tehran being told to evacuate their homes do not want their neighborhoods to be flattened or their friends and family to be killed — no one wants that. When, in Gaza in 2023, Khaled Nabhan held the lifeless body of his three-year-old granddaughter Reem, he did not speak of revenge or anger, just anguish, the loss of his grandchildren in an Israeli attack and, more importantly, of love.

Leaders

an hour ago

• Leaders

Iranian Parliament Approves Closure of Strait of Hormuz after US Strikes

The Iranian Parliament approved on Sunday the closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the US attacks that targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, according to Gulf News. Final Decision The measure was submitted to Iran's Supreme National Security Council to make the final decision, Iran's Press TV said on Sunday. 'The parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favor of authorizing the closure of the Strait,' state news agencies reported. Revolutionary Guards Commander Esmail Kosari told the Young Journalist Club that closing the Strait of Hormuz, a significant maritime corridor for global oil shipments, is on the agenda and 'will be done whenever necessary.' US Attacks on Iran The step comes less than 24 hours after the US airstrikes targeted Iran's nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. 'The United States showed that they have no respect to United Nations Charter. They have no respect to international law. They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,' Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said. Moreover, Araghchi accused Trump of not only betraying Iran by abusing its commitment to diplomacy but also deceiving his own voters by implementing to the wishes of a war criminal. 'He has betrayed not only Iran by abusing our commitment to diplomacy but also deceived his own voters by submitting to the wishes of a wanted war criminal who has grown accustomed to exploiting the lives and wealth of American citizens to further the Israeli regime's objectives,' he added. Israel-Iran War On June 13, Israel launched a wave of airstrikes on Iran under the name of Operation Rising Lion. The military campaign targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and killed top military commanders and nuclear scientists. As a response, Iran launched a retaliatory wave of missiles against Israel and targeted Tel Aviv. Israel also killed three more Iranian nuclear scientists, bringing the total number of scientists slain to nine, Gulf News reported. Currently, both countries are trading missiles and attacks amid intensifying efforts to halt the conflict. Related Topics: Iranian FM Heads to Moscow for Urgent Talks with Putin What We Know About the Iranian Nuclear Facilities Targeted in US Strikes Iranian FM to Attend Arab League, OIC Meetings in Istanbul Short link : Post Views: 20

Al Arabiya

an hour ago

• Al Arabiya

US orders more diplomatic staff to leave Iraq, Lebanon amid Iran tensions

The United States has ordered additional staff from its diplomatic missions in Iraq and Lebanon to leave the countries, as Washington carried out strikes Sunday on Iranian nuclear facilities. More diplomatic personnel departed Iraq on Saturday and Sunday as part of ongoing efforts to reduce embassy staffing due to 'regional tensions,' a US official told AFP, after an earlier drawdown. In Lebanon, the US embassy said that the State Department ordered Sunday the departure of family members and non-emergency US government personnel. The US official said the reduction was 'part of our ongoing effort to streamline operations, additional personnel departed Iraq on June 21 and 22.' The departures from Iraq were a continuation of a process that started last week 'out of an abundance of caution and due to heightened regional tensions,' he added. The embassy and the consulate remain operational. Earlier on Sunday, Washington joined Israel's war with Tehran as President Donald Trump announced US strikes on Iran's main nuclear sites. Iran had threatened to target US military bases in the region if conflict broke out. Fears are growing in Iraq over a possible intervention by Iran-backed armed factions, who have threatened Washington's interests in the region if it were to join Israel in its war against Iran. Iraq, which has for years been navigating a delicate balancing act between its allies, Tehran and Washington, has long been a fertile ground for proxy battles. On Sunday, the Iraqi government warned 'its deep concern and strong condemnation of the targeting of nuclear facilities' in Iran, spokesperson Basim Alawadi said. 'This military escalation constitutes a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East and poses serious risks to regional stability,' he added. Alawadi warned that 'the continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state.' In Lebanon, a statement on the US embassy website said that 'on June 22, 2025, the US Department of State ordered the departure of family members and non-emergency US government personnel from Lebanon due to the volatile and unpredictable security situation in the region.' Washington has a 'do not travel' advisory in place for Lebanon, where Tehran-backed Hezbollah suffered heavy blows in its latest confrontation with Israel last year. Hezbollah has not expressed any intention to intervene militarily on Iran's side, but its chief Naim Qassem said last week that the group would 'act as we see fit.'