Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency.
The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon.
Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran.
Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes.
The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle.
Live updates: Iran threatens to shut Strait of Hormuz; US warns of 'heightened' risk
Here are five big questions about what comes next.
This is the most important question.
Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran.
Iranian television reported that Iran's Parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era.
It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war.
Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies.
Another widely discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets.
Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran.
Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday.
'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.'
Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement looked divided on a strike on Iran.
Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts.
MAGA voices ranging from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict.
In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception.
And administration officials with noninterventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country.
Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder.
That will be something the administration watches closely going forward.
Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk.
On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd chanted 'no more wars.'
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year.
Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes.
At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions.
Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it.
'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement.
'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.'
'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said.
Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, reposted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it.
In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines.
Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush.
Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars.
So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal nonnuclear bombs?
It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy.
After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously had been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israeli attack.
But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers.
Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term.
Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions.
Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict.
That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East war.
At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views.
Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).
It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders.
Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night.
Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions.
It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong.
So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.
But Trump is his own decider in chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
7 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who can vote in Broome County primary election? When, where polls are open
Broome County Republicans will have the chance to vote to appoint five nominees for local government positions in late June. This year, only Republican primary elections will take place in Broome County, and only registered Republican voters in designated towns are eligible to vote, with no other parties holding primary elections within Broome County. Voters will have the chance to decide their party's nominee for Broome County clerk, Windsor town council member, Windsor town justice and two Johnson City trustees. The winners of each primary race will become the Republican nominees in the general election in November. Here is everything you need to know about how to vote on Primary Election Day. More: Here are the Broome County primary candidates on the ballot June 24 Voting will take place on Tuesday, June 24, when polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Primary election poll sites in Broome County include: Holy Spirit Byzantine Catholic Church Recreation Center, 358 Clinton St., Binghamton. Broome County Public Library Decker Room, 185 Court St., Binghamton. American Legion Post 1645, 177 Robinson St., Binghamton. St. Patrick's Parish Center Lobby, 58 Oak St., Binghamton. Unitarian Universalist Church of Binghamton, 183 Riverside Drive, Binghamton. St. John & St. Andrew Church Parish, 1263 Vestal Ave., Binghamton. Conklin Ave First Baptist Church, 91 Baldwin St., Binghamton. Barker Town Office Building, 151 Hyde St., Barker. Binghamton Town Hall, 279 Upper Park Ave, Binghamton. Chenango Fire Station #1, 86 Castle Creek Road, Chenango. Chenango Bridge First United Methodist, lower rear entrance, 740 River Road, Chenango. Colesville Town Hall, 780 Welton St., Colesville. Floyd Maines Community Center, 942 Conklin Road, Conklin. Cornell Cooperative Extension Taste NY Building, 840 Upper Front St., Dickinson. Fenton Town Hall, 44 Park St., Fenton. Kirkwood Town Hall, 70 Crescent Drive, Kirkwood. Lisle Fire Station #1, 9090 state Route 79, Lisle. Most Holy Rosary Church, 2596 Main St., Maine. Glen Aubrey Fire Company, 32 Octagon St., Nanticoke. Sanford Town Hall, 91 Second St., Sanford. Triangle Town Hall, 2612 Liberty St., Triangle. Our Lady of Lourdes Church, 594 Kent St., Windsor. George F. Johnson Memorial Library, 1001 Park St., Endicott. St. Anthony of Padua Church, 300 Odell Ave., Endicott. Calvary Community Wesleyan Church, 780 Harry L Drive, Johnson City. Sacred Heart Ukrainian Catholic Church, 230 Ukrainian Hill Road, Johnson City. Primitive Methodist Church, 4 Ackley Ave., Johnson City. West Corners Fire Station, 500 Day Hollow Road, Endicott. Union Center Fire Station #1, 1811 state Route 26, Union Center. Our Savior Lutheran Church, 731 Hooper Road, Endwell. Endwell United Methodist Church, 3301 Watson Blvd., Endwell. Endwell Fire Station #1, 3508 Country Club Road, Endwell. Vestal Town Hall, board room, 605 Vestal Parkway West, Vestal. Vestal Public Library, 320 Vestal Parkway East, Vestal. Vestal Fire Station #4, 118 S Jensen Road, Vestal. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 305 Murray Hill Road, Vestal. Our Lady of Sorrows Church, 801 Main St., Vestal. Vestal Fire Station #2, 2513 state Route 26 South, Vestal Center. Find your election district online at This article originally appeared on Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin: Broome County Primary Election voter guide: When, where to vote
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Major U.S. banks poised for massive shift in approach toward cryptocurrency: 'Defend your right to buy'
Despite the instability of cryptocurrency, major U.S. banks are considering a move toward supporting these emerging currencies, Reuters reported. However, they are being rightfully cautious given the shifting legal landscape and how easy it would be to run afoul of laws designed to keep our financial systems honest. Reuters spoke to industry executives about the possibility and revealed that internal discussions are already happening regarding the potential change. However, no bank wants to make the first move. "When I look at the bitcoin universe, the leverage in the system, the misuse in the system, the money laundering issues, trafficking, I'm not a fan of it," said Jamie Dimon, CEO of the largest U.S. bank, JPMorgan Chase, per Reuters. "We're going to allow you to buy it, we're not going to custody it. ... I don't think you should smoke, but I defend your right to smoke. I defend your right to buy bitcoin." It's not surprising that banks have their eye on this move. President Trump has courted cryptocurrency enthusiasts with promises to create a federal cryptocurrency reserve and make other investments as president. However, it's also not surprising that they're hanging back. The risk is high, and anti-money laundering rules and other regulations could sharply limit their activities, with no guarantees yet as to how those rules may change. When banks do enter the game, it will likely be in small ways, as partners to existing organizations. They may also want to create a stablecoin of their own. It's in the best interests of the American public for legal protections regarding cryptocurrency to be strengthened and for banks to be cautious. All the computing power needed is bad for the environment, at least until we switch to a more eco-friendly cryptocurrency. In the meantime, until banking regulators speak up, we're unlikely to see much change in crypto banking. Do you think the federal government should give us tax breaks to improve our homes? Definitely Only for certain upgrades Let each state decide instead No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Sign in to access your portfolio
