As Trump weighs bombing Iran's Fordow, 'mission creep' lurks behind US attack

US President Donald Trump believes he is only weighing military strikes on Iran's Fordow nuclear plant, but the history of Middle East "mission creep" lurks behind his deliberations.
Mission creep is when a military campaign's objectives start to shift and devolve into a longer, unforeseen commitment, and has often characterised US military adventures around the world.
"If the US does join the war in Iran - and right now I think it won't - it will go in planning only to do some limited bombing. But as we all know, once you're in a war, there can be a lot of surprises. It is much easier to get into a war than to get out of one,' Tom E Ricks, the author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, told Middle East Eye.
On Thursday evening, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump approved a US attack plan on Iran but is waiting to see if he can get Iran to renounce its nuclear programme. The New York Times also followed that with a report saying Iran was willing to accept Trump's offer to meet.
But history shows that the US may struggle to stop at Fordow, even if Trump wants to. His deliberation on whether to attack Iran is being compared to the 2003 decision to invade Iraq, but that might be a false comparison.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The story of the US's involvement in Iraq is one of incremental involvement.
In 1991, the US implemented a no-fly zone to protect Iraq's Kurdish minority. Then, in 1998, the US and UK launched widespread strikes on Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein failed to allow weapons inspectors access to his country. The decision to invade fully came in 2003 after the US falsely claimed the country had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda militant group.
Even then, experts say there are key differences from now.
Although Israel lobbied the US for many years to invade Iraq, that war was US-led.
US joins 'Israel-led war'
Now, Trump is on the cusp of joining Israel in what is the zenith of its long campaign to rewrite the balance of power in the Middle East since the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023.
That attack set off a region-wide war with Israeli ground troops occupying the Gaza Strip. Israel degraded Hezbollah in Lebanon and has repeatedly launched strikes in Syria, both while Bashar al-Assad's government was in power there and after his overthrow in December 2024.
'Iraq was a US war,' Paul Salem, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told MEE. 'What we have seen since 7 October [2023] is something different; Israeli-led and designed wars with Israeli objectives and the US coming along.'
If Trump does launch strikes on Iran, he will do so under justifications that echo 2003, but it's still not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Then, the US falsely claimed that Iraq's Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.
But there are key differences now.
'What makes this precipice of intervention unique is that the US was engaged in direct negotiations with Iran,' Fawaz Gerges, author of What Really Went Wrong: The West and the Failure of Democracy in the Middle East, told MEE.
'What makes this precipice of intervention unique is that the US was engaged in direct negotiations with Iran'
- Fawaz Gerges, academic and author
Indeed, just before the Israeli attack, Iran and the US were set to meet in Oman for the sixth round of nuclear talks aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear programme. And the reality is that this agreement would just be a follow-up deal to the nuclear deal that Iran and the US signed during President Barack Obama's tenure, which Trump unilaterally exited from during his first tenure.
However, in 2003, Hussein ultimately rejected requests for inspectors to enter Iraq. The Bush administration then used false intelligence to justify its attack.
Trump's own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said in March that Iran was not seeking to build a nuclear weapon.
Trump disregarded her assessment. 'I don't care what she said,' Trump said on Tuesday about the assessment. 'I think they were very close to having a weapon.'
As of Thursday, Trump was still vacillating between striking Iran and appearing to use Israel's pummelling of the Islamic Republic as a negotiating card to achieve what he says his aim is - Iran renouncing all enrichment of uranium.
"I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," Trump said in the Oval Office. He earlier called for Iran's 'unconditional surrender'.
Arab officials whose countries have been trying to mediate between Iran and the US told MEE earlier that they believe Trump is more likely than not to order US strikes on Iran.
The expected target of American strikes is Fordow, the Iranian enrichment facility buried half a kilometre underground. Israel needs the US's 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs and B-2 aircraft to have a chance at destroying the plant through conventional strikes.
Mission creep
The US has conducted limited bombing campaigns elsewhere in the Middle East, but has rarely avoided being drawn into a deeper commitment.
One example where it did so was 1986 in Libya, when the Reagan administration bombed Muammar Gaddafi's regime in retaliation for the bombing of a disco in West Berlin that killed two US service members.
Ethan Chorin, a former US diplomat and author, said the closest parallel to today is the Obama administration's 2011 decision to lead a Nato bombing campaign on Libya during the Arab Spring.
'Initially, US intervention in Libya was ostensibly to protect civilians in Benghazi,' Chorin said, author of Exit the Colonel: The Hidden History of the Libyan Revolution.
But Chorin said the comparisons stop there.
'Libya was seen as a 'safer bet' for intervention during the Arab Spring. No one thinks Iran is marginal. There is a big difference. But the concern about mission creep is there.'
Diego Garcia: The Indian Ocean base the US can use to target Iran Read More »
'Assume you destroy Fordow and have an agitated regime that is still in power. What lessons will they (the regime) have learned?' he added.
The Trump administration has not stated that its goal is regime change in Iran, but Trump didn't rule it out, saying on Truth Social that the US knows where he is but has decided not to take him out, "at least not for now".
But Israel has made no secret that a positive outcome for them of the attacks on Iran's senior chain of command, energy infrastructure and military capabilities could collapse the government.
'It could certainly be the result, because Iran is very weak,' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News on Monday. 'The decision to act, to rise up, at this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.'
If Trump does enter the war with Israel, suggesting its goals are regime change, it would be a major pivot for a US president who visited the Gulf in May and excoriated 'interventionists' and 'nation-builders'.
Libya, a predominantly Sunni Muslim country of just seven million people, is a bad comparison. The spark for the protests against Gaddafi was organic, coming as part of the wider Arab Spring movement. It then descended into a civil war, fuelled in part by Gulf states backing rival militias.
Even Iraq, where the US carried out De-Ba'athification after ousting Hussein's secular government, does not compare to Iran, Gerges told MEE.
'There is a delusion of raw power here,' he told MEE.
'The objectives have changed, but here the goal seems to be to destroy as much as possible in the military infrastructure and see if, as a side effect, you bring about regime change or just chaos.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Zawya

24 minutes ago

• Zawya

Oman continues diplomatic efforts to contain escalation of Israel-Iran conflict

Muscat: The Sultanate of Oman continues its diligent diplomatic efforts to contain the unprecedented escalation resulting from Israel's military aggression against Iran, which has ignited the current regional tension. Oman has reaffirmed its steadfast position rejecting military escalation and violations of state sovereignty, emphasizing that the only way to address the crisis lies in a serious return to the diplomatic path, aiming to reach a just agreement and save the region from an abyss with unknown consequences that could impact the entire world. In this context, His Excellency Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Al Busaidi, held phone calls on Wednesday with his Russian and Chinese counterparts as part of a series of calls with various brotherly and friendly countries. The discussions focused on the urgent need for an immediate cessation of hostilities, stressing that Israel is the aggressor, violatin UN Carter and obstructing peace efforts, including the recent American-Iranian negotiations aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation. The ministers agreed that a military solution is ineffective and that achieving an early ceasefire would pave the way for a return to the negotiating table to address the nuclear issue in a manner that ensures stability and peace for all. During the call, the Minister and His Excellency Sergey Lavrov agreed that this unprecedented escalation violates United Nations Charter, renewing their call for an immediate halt to these attacks and their expansion, as well as refraining from targeting nuclear facilities to prevent the risks of nuclear radiation. The Russian Minister also expressed his country's deep appreciation for Oman's mediation efforts, affirming the Russian Federation's support for these negotiations, diplomatic channels, political solutions, and their utmost importance in establishing international peace and security. On the other hand, His Excellency Wang Yi, Chinese Foreign Minister, emphasized that the nuclear issue cannot be resolved outside the scope of diplomatic efforts and that Israel's attacks on Iranian territory constitute a clear and blatant violation of UN Charter and the principles of international law. He also affirmed his agreement with Oman's position and highly valued the Sultanate's tireless efforts to promote peace and facilitate negotiation pathways. 2022 © All right reserved for Oman Establishment for Press, Publication and Advertising (OEPPA) Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (

The National

35 minutes ago

• The National

South-East Asian countries are broadly siding with Iran in its conflict with Israel. This isn't surprising

While some western leaders have been shredding what little remains of the rules-based international order by bizarrely insisting that the appropriate way to respond to Israel's illegal attacks on Iran is to state that 'Israel does have the right to defend itself', there is a different view in South-East Asia. The leaders of Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei have all condemned the aggression of the Israeli government, while Singapore has called for an immediate ceasefire. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was typically straightforward. 'We must stand up for the rights of our friends, including Iran, which has been wronged,' he said on Sunday. 'We defend Iran's right to retaliate in order to uphold its national dignity.' Referring to that retaliation, he said: 'Many European nations criticised and express outrage against Iran. But when Israel launched its attacks, they remained silent. I do not share that view.' His government would continue 'to uphold the principle of defending the rights and sovereignty of all nations,' he added. Brunei is a signatory – as is the UAE - to the joint statement by 21 Arab and Islamic countries which states their 'categorical rejection and condemnation of Israel's recent attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran since the 13th of June 2025 … while emphasising the necessity of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, adhering to the principles of good neighbourliness, and the peaceful settlement of disputes'. Asked about the Israel-Iran conflict on Monday, the head of Indonesia's Presidential Communication Office said: 'In every conflict, Indonesia's stance is always the same: condemning military aggression, encouraging de-escalation and ceasefire, and calling for a resolution through diplomacy and international law.' The stance in Jakarta is unsurprising. Iran's late president Ebrahim Raisi paid a state visit to Indonesia in 2023, and earlier this week local media quoted the Iranian ambassador as saying that a reciprocal invitation was being issued to President Prabowo Subianto. 'If Prabowo accepts [Iranian] President Masoud Pezeshkian's invitation, we can arrange the perfect time for their meeting,' he told them, a little precipitously, some may think, given the current circumstances. Mr Prabowo also appeared to speak for Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong on Tuesday, when the two appeared before reporters at Parliament House, Singapore, after a bilateral meeting this week, and said: 'We emphasise the importance of peaceful solution negotiations, and we call for an immediate ceasefire.' If the Israeli government wasn't a pariah before, it is now Only last month Mr Prabowo said that: "Indonesia has stated that once Israel recognises Palestine, Indonesia is ready to recognise Israel and open the diplomatic relationship." Don't expect much more of that kind of talk in the region for now. The words 'valid for all countries except Israel' are unlikely to disappear from Malaysian passports any time soon. As it is, international sporting events have already been stripped from Malaysia and Indonesia over the past few years after prominent politicians objected to Israelis taking part. Singapore's leadership probably keeps as quiet as possible about the city-state's long and close ties to Israel, which have caused protests this year and last. In fact, all countries in the region with significant Muslim minorities, and that includes Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar and the Philippines, need to tread carefully on the Israel-Iran conflict – which may be why their governments appear to have said or done little or nothing thus far. The reason for that is opinion among the region's about 250 million Muslims is, broadly speaking, pretty black and white: the government of Israel is – yet again – the aggressor, and Iran has the right to fight back. From my own experiences at conferences involving South-East Asian countries, I would suggest, however, it's important to note that the friendliness is with Iran as a state and as a fellow Muslim country. It's not about approval of the Islamic Republic per se, nor its activities interfering in other states in the Middle East. First of all, distance matters. Iran's support of the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon is in a faraway neighbourhood. Second, the South-East Asian view would be that all of that, including Iran's domestic political set-up, is none of their business. The principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states applies, and Iran does not seek to intervene in South-East Asian states. This is also why the fact that Iran is Shiite, a form of Islam that is a tiny minority and not exactly encouraged in the overwhelmingly Sunni region, is not an issue. That is seen as an internal matter for Iran, and doesn't need to affect relations between states. Seen from South-East Asia, Iran is a state which has for centuries been an important part of the Islamic world. There is no reason at all why it should not be treated warmly as part of the 'friends with all' approach common in the region. The US and its allies may regard it as 'the principal source of regional instability and terror', as the recent G7 statement put it, but that doesn't persuade people in Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta or Mindanao. After all, even if Tehran managed to achieve the nuclear bomb that it has always denied trying to build, it is highly unlikely that it would ever be pointed towards South-East Asia. And, in any case, I have heard pointed out many times: Israel has a nuclear bomb – why shouldn't Iran? The latter is simply not viewed as any kind of threat at all. Support for Israel, on the other hand, has always been low to the point of unmeasurable among the Muslim masses in South-East Asia, even if some elites were open to co-operation on security matters, for instance. Now it is hard to find anyone who isn't troubled by Israel's constant flouting of international law and complete disregard for civilian life. Iran has sometimes been said in the last few days to have 'no friends'. But if Tehran looks east, it will find hundreds of millions who are, at the least, well-disposed towards them. And in the current conflict, there's little doubt about whose side they are on.

Khaleej Times

38 minutes ago

• Khaleej Times

Israeli minister warns Hezbollah against entering Iran-Israel war

Israel's defence minister Israel Katz on Friday warned Hezbollah against entering the Iran-Israel war, after the Lebanese group said it would act "as we see fit". "I suggest the Lebanese proxy be cautious and understand that Israel has lost patience with terrorists who threaten it", Katz said in a statement, adding that "if there is terrorism; there will be no Hezbollah." In other statements, the group has made no explicit pledge to join the fighting and a Hezbollah official told Reuters last week that the group did not intend to initiate attacks against Israel. On June 13, Israel launched airstrikes on Iran. In response, Iran fired hundreds of missiles. The conflict has escalated, and prolonged for over a week.