Three ways Trump's attack on Iran could spin out of control
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here.
Vice President JD Vance, President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during an address to the nation in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. Carlos Barria/Reuters/Bloomberg via Getty Images
When Vice President JD Vance appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday morning, anchor Kristen Welker asked him a simple question: Is the United States now at war with Iran?
In response, Vance said, 'We're not at war with Iran; we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.'
This is akin to saying that, in attacking Pearl Harbor, Imperial Japan had merely declared war on America's warship construction program. Yet it's notable that Vance felt the need to engage in such contortions — and that President Donald Trump, in his address to the nation last night, went out of his way to emphasize that there were no additional strikes planned.
The Trump administration does not want to admit it has begun a war, because wars have a way of escalating beyond anyone's control. What we should be worrying about now is not how the US-Iran fighting began, but how it ends.
It is all too easy to see how these initial strikes could escalate into something much bigger — if Iran's nuclear program remains mostly intact, or if Iran retaliates in a way that forces American counter-escalation.
It's possible neither occurs, and this stays as limited as currently advertised. Or factors beyond our knowledge — the 'unknown unknowns' of the current conflict — could lead to an even greater escalation than anyone is currently predicting. The worst-case scenario, an outright regime change effort akin to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, cannot be entirely ruled out.
I don't know how bad things will get, or even if things are likely to get worse. But when I watched Trump's speech, and heard his obviously premature claims that 'Iran's key nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' I couldn't help thinking about another speech from over 20 years ago — when, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared 'Mission Accomplished.'
The mission hadn't been accomplished then, as it almost certainly hasn't been now. We can only hope that the resulting events this time are not a similar kind of catastrophe.
Escalation pathway one: 'finishing the job'
We do not know, at present, just how much damage American bombs have done to their targets — Iranian enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Satellite imagery shows that there are above-ground buildings still standing, belying Trump's claims of complete destruction, but many of the targets are underground. It's possible these were dealt a severe blow, and it's possible they weren't.
Either scenario creates pathways to escalation.
If the damage is indeed relatively limited, and one round of American bombs was not able to shatter the heavily reinforced concrete Iran uses to protect its underground assets, the Trump administration will face two bad choices.
It can either let a clearly furious Iran retain operational nuclear facilities, raising the risk that they dash for a nuclear weapon, or it can keep bombing until the attacks have done sufficient damage to prevent Iran from getting a weapon in the immediate future. That commits the United States to, at minimum, an indefinite bombing campaign inside Iran.
But even if this attack did do real damage, that leaves the question of the program's long-term future.
Iran could decide, after being attacked, that the only way to protect itself is to rebuild its nuclear program in a hurry and get a bomb. It has already moved to quit the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), an agreement that gives international inspectors (and, by extension, the world) visibility into its nuclear development.
There are, again, two ways to ensure that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei doesn't make such a choice: a diplomatic agreement akin to the 2015 nuclear deal, or else a war of regime change aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government altogether.
The first isn't impossible, but it certainly seems unlikely at present. The US and Iran were negotiating on its nuclear program when Israel began bombing Iranian targets, seemingly using the talks as cover to catch Iran off guard. It seems very unlikely that Iran would see the US as a credible negotiating partner now that it has joined Israel's war.
That leaves the other form of 'finishing the job': a full-on war of regime change. My colleague Josh Keating has argued, convincingly, that Israel wants such an outcome. And some of Trump's allies, including Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, have openly called for it.
'Wouldn't the world be better off if the ayatollahs went away and were replaced by something better?' Graham asked, rhetorically, in a Fox News interview last Monday. 'It's time to close the chapter on the Ayatollah and his henchmen. Let's close it soon.'
Such a dire outcome seems, at present, very distant. But the further Trump continues down a hawkish path on Iran, the more thinkable it will become.
Escalation pathway two: a US-Iran cycle of violence
There's a military truism that, in war, 'the enemy gets a vote.' It could be that Iran's actions force American escalation even if the Trump administration doesn't want to go any further than it has right now.
So far, Iran's military response to both US and Israeli attacks has been underwhelming. Tehran is clearly hobbled by the damage Israel did to its proxy militias, Hezbollah and Hamas, and its ballistic missiles are not capable of threatening the Israeli homeland in the way that many fear.
But there are two things Iran hasn't tried that are, after American intervention, more likely to be on the table.
The first is an attack on US servicemembers stationed in the Middle East, of which there are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 at present. Of particular note are the US forces currently stationed in Iraq and Syria. Iraq is home to several Iranian-aligned militias that could potentially be ordered to directly attack American troops in the country or across the border in Syria.
The second is an attack on international shipping lanes. The most dangerous scenario involves an attempt to use missiles and naval assets to close the Strait of Hormuz, a Persian Gulf passage used by roughly 20 percent of global oil shipping by volume.
If Iran either kills significant numbers of American troops or attempts to do major damage to the global economy, there will surely be American retaliation. In his Saturday speech, Trump promised that if Iran retaliates, 'future [American] attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' An effort to detonate the global oil market would, without a doubt, necessitate such a response: The US cannot allow Iran to hold its economy hostage.
We do not, to be clear, know whether Iran is willing to take such risks, or even if it can. Israeli attacks have devastated its military capabilities, including ballistic missile launchers that allow it to hit targets well beyond its borders.
But a 'cycle of violence' is a very common way that violence escalates: One side attacks, the other side retaliates, prompting another attack, and on up the chain. Once they start, such cycles can be difficult to prevent from spiraling out of control.
Escalation pathway three: the Iraq analogy, or things fall apart
I want to be clear that escalation here isn't a given. It is possible that the US and its Israeli partners remain satisfied with one American bombing run, and that the Iranians are too scared or weak to engage in any major response.
But those are a whole lot of 'ifs.' And we have no way of knowing, at present, whether we're heading to a best- or worst-case scenario (or one of several possibilities in the middle). Key decision points, like whether Trump orders another round of US raids on Fordow or Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, will determine which pathways we go down — and it's hard to know which choices the key actors in Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem will make.
I keep thinking about the 2003 Iraq war in part for obvious reasons: the US attacking a Middle Eastern dictatorship based on flimsy intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction. But the other parallel, perhaps a deeper one, is that the architects of the Iraq War had little-to-no understanding of the second-order consequences of their choices.
There was so much they didn't know, both about Iraq as a country and the likely consequences of regime change more broadly, that they failed to grasp just how much of a quagmire the war might become until it had already sucked in the United States. It's over 20 years later, and boots are still on the ground — drawn in by events, like the creation of ISIS, that were direct results of the initial decision to invade.
Attacking Iran, even with the more 'modest' aim of destroying its nuclear program, carries similar risks. The attack carries so many potential consequences, involving so many different countries and constituencies, that it's hard to even begin to try to account for all the potential risks that might cause further US escalation. There are likely consequences taking shape, at this moment, that we can't even begin to conceive of.
The nature of the Trump administration gives me little hope that they've properly gamed this out. The president himself is a compulsive liar and foreign policy ignoramus. The secretary of defense has run his department into the ground. The secretary of state, who is also the national security adviser, has more jobs than anyone could reasonably be expected to perform competently at once. It is, in short, far less competent on paper than the Bush administration was prior to the Iraq invasion — and look how that went.
It's possible, despite all of this, that the Trump administration has adequately gamed out their choices here — preparing for all reasonably foreseeable contingencies and capable of acting swiftly in the (inevitable) event that some response catches the world by surprise. But if it didn't, then things could go badly and tragically wrong.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
ISIS behind deadly church suicide bombing near Damascus, Syrian interior minister says
The Islamic State is believed to be behind a deadly suicide bombing that happened at a Greek Orthodox church in Syria on Sunday. At least 22 people were killed, and 63 others were injured in the attack that took place at the Mar Elias Church in Dweil'a – on the outskirts of Damascus. It reportedly began while people were praying. The perpetrator first opened fire on the worshipers, before detonating himself. While no group immediately claimed responsibility for the mass-casualty attack, Syrian Interior Ministry spokesman Noureddine Al-Baba suggested ISIS as a likely culprit following a preliminary investigation. "The security of places of worship is a red line," Al-Baba said further, castigating ISIS and what remains of the former government of Ba'athist dictator Bashar al-Assad as actors trying to destabilize Syria. The country's foreign ministry echoed Al-Baba, describing the attack as "a desperate attempt to undermine national coexistence and to destabilize the country." The attack comes amid a time of heightened political unrest in the notoriously volatile Middle East – less than 24 hours after the U.S. launched airstrikes on three of Iran's top nuclear facilities. Israel launched a series of similar attacks, including attacks on the Iranian capital, Tehran, in the weeks prior.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil hits five-month high after US hits key Iranian nuclear sites
SINGAPORE (Reuters) -Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January as Washington's weekend move to join Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities stoked supply worries. Brent crude futures rose $1.88 or 2.44% at $78.89 a barrel as of 1122 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude advanced $1.87 or 2.53% at $75.71. Both contracts jumped by more than 3% earlier in the session to $81.40 and $78.40, respectively, five-month highs, before giving up some gains. The rise in prices came after U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes over the weekend, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Market participants expect further price gains amid mounting fears that an Iranian retaliation may include a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude supply flows. Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament approved a measure to close the strait. Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through on the move. "The risks of damage to oil infrastructure ... have multiplied," said Sparta Commodities senior analyst June Goh. Although there are alternative pipeline routes out of the region, there will still be crude volumes that cannot be fully exported out if the Strait of Hormuz becomes inaccessible. Shippers will increasingly stay out of the region, she added. Brent has risen 13% since the conflict began on June 13, while WTI has gained around 10%. The current geopolitical risk premium is unlikely to last without tangible supply disruptions, analysts said. Meanwhile, the unwinding of some of the long positions accumulated following a recent price rally could cap an upside to oil prices, Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, wrote in a market commentary on Sunday.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Australia backs US strike on Iran to prevent nukes
Australia has supported US strikes on Iran to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as Anthony Albanese calls an urgent national security meeting. After days of escalation, the US launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday (AEST) as President Donald Trump declared "there will be peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran". The prime minister convened the National Security Committee on Monday morning, with public comments likely to follow. Foreign Minister Penny Wong has urged all parties to prioritise diplomacy and dialogue to prevent a "full-scale war" in the Middle East. "We support action to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that is what this is," she told Nine's Today show on Monday. "It's what happens next is what the world is focused on." The foreign minister said Washington had not made any requests of Australia. But she would not say if the joint US intelligence surveillance base, Pine Gap, in the Northern Territory had played a role in the operation. Senator Wong also said the number of Australians who had registered for help to leave the region had jumped to about 2900 in Iran and 1300 in Israel. Acting opposition foreign spokesman Andrew Hastie said the coalition had wanted to see Iran come to the negotiating table and submit to a full inspection by the International Atomic and Energy Agency. "We support those strikes, and now we want to see dialogue and diplomacy," he told ABC's RN. "We want to see a peaceful settlement from here, and I'm just not going to speculate on what steps might be taken next." Department of Foreign Affairs staff were evacuated from the embassy in Tehran last week and are helping Australian citizens and residents who make it through Iran's border with Azerbaijan. Senator Wong has previously said that while Australia has deployed Australian Defence Force personnel to assist with evacuation efforts, they aren't there for combat purposes. Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, where about a quarter of the world's oil transits through, prompting fear prices will be sent skyrocketing. Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce said it "goes without saying that Iran was up to no good". "This could go south in the most tremendous way for Australia and I did see a sense of gloating and hubris from the United States," he told Seven's Sunrise show on Monday. "That is alright if it is the end of the game, but if this takes the next step we are all going to be involved." Despite questions over whether Australia should do more to support its major ally, former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said combat troops weren't the way forward. "There's no way we would put troops on the ground," he told AAP. "I don't think the government or the political establishment here are suggesting that we just follow whatever the US is going to do." Australia has previously provided some resources around shipping lanes, but during the recent outbreak of violence, the government has refused to entertain the possibility of military involvement. However, the American strikes have also been labelled as a "terrifying and catastrophic escalation" with the Greens warning further violence from Israel or the US would impact ordinary Iranian civilians.
