Latest news with #AaronDavidMiller
Al Arabiya
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
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.'
India Today
14 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
How US strikes on Iran could lead to spiral of crisis
"Attacking Iran is not a Nike commercial — Just Do It," said Middle East expert Aaron David Miller on the US striking Iran's nuclear sites. US President Donald Trump's decision to get into a war with Iran with ruthless strikes not only displays American power, but changes the dynamics in the oil-rich region. It also pushes the US into a "forever war", like it fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Trump vowed not to get the country Saturday (US time), American forces carried out coordinated airstrikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites in US used six B-2 bombers to drop a dozen bunker-buster bombs on the nuclear site in the Fordow, CNN reported, quoting a US official. "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," Trump said on Truth Social. The strikes, the first direct US military involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict, will lead to a major like Aaron David Miller said, it isn't just a Nike ad."The most important point of today and every day. Attacking Iran is not a Nike commercial — Just Do It. When America puts its forces in harm's way, it's not just can we do it; but should we; what will it cost and what about day after," Miller, a senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment and former US State Department analyst, posted on it could very well be a midsummers night's nightmare for the US, as well as the world.1. US ASSERTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST AMID CHINA CAUTIONIran had positioned itself as a Shia counterweight to Sunni Saudi Arabia, an American ally, and created a Shia superstate. A militarily crippled Iran will tilt the balance of powers in the Middle China and Russia warned the US against military intervention in Iran after Israel attacked its nuclear facilities and top military commanders nine days Trump warned Iran of impending strikes last week, Guo Jiakun, spokesman for the Chinese foreign affairs ministry, said any use of force by the US would be seen as an infringement of Iran's sovereignty and security. Russia's foreign ministry's spokeswoman Maria Zakharova too "particularly warned" the US against military intervention, "which would be an extremely dangerous step with truly unpredictable negative consequences".Though China and Russia are least likely to get directly involved in the war, they might help Iran counter the US, which has faced challenges from their covert help to its opponents in the Middle strikes in Iran, in which the fighter jets flew for 37 hours, covering a distance of 11,400 kilometres, shows the US' has got the US into a Middle East muddle, and everyone is clear about that. What is also clear is Trump's assertion."Iran, the bully of the Mideast, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater," he said in an address from the White House.2. IRAN WEAKENED BUT MIGHT USE PROXIES TO TARGET USTrump claimed that the strikes were a success, but didn't provide any if its nuclear advancements have been destroyed, Iran remains a threat to the US and Israel. It has threatened to strike back, and shown that by firing a volley of missiles into Tel Aviv."The events [the US strikes] this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences," Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi posted on what can Iran do now?"The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities. But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick," Miller told could use its proxy militia, like the Lebanon-based Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels of Yemen, to hit American and Israeli interests in and around the IRAN'S DIRECT ATTACK ON US CENTRES IN MIDDLE EASTThe US has thousands of its troops in the Middle East in bases like Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Iran could make them the target of its these bases have missile shields, just like Israel's, they might have little time to respond to waves of missiles and swarms of drones given their proximity to Iran, according to an Associated Press with the advantage of geographical distance and sophisticated missile shield, Israel has been unable to shoot down all the missiles from Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, told Reuters that Iran's next move remained an open question. He suggested that "Iran could hit soft targets of the US and Israel inside and outside the region".If Iran kills any American in its attack, Trump and the US will be sucked into a cycle of escalation, which might not have a clear has already promised that."Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater that what was witnessed tonight," Trump posted in all-caps on Truth Social after his OIL'S NOT WELL. ALL EYES ON STRAIT OF HORMUZAny crisis in the Middle East has big repercussions for global trade and oil prices. With Iran, the third-largest producer among members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), involved, crude oil prices had isn't just Iranian oil, but the crude trade route that passes through the Strait of Hormuz along Iran's southern coast that has experts and traders 20% of globally traded crude oil and related products move through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a narrow mouth in the Persian Gulf. At its narrowest point, the Gulf of Hormuz is just 33-km Associated Press analysis said that Iran's fleet of fast-attack boats and naval mines could make the strait the US entry into the war, Iran could launch direct attacks on tankers and energy was a fear RBC Capital analyst Helima Croft expressed while speaking to Reuters last the US 5th Fleet, stationed in Bahrain, would intervene, even jitters are enough to send oil prices high, and have a bearing on economies across the Reuters report from June 19 said the Brent crude futures, a measure for global oil prices, ended 3% up at $78.85 a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint, could see oil prices surging to a crippling $120-$130 per barrel, according to investment banking firm JP Morgan.5. TRUMP'S LEGACY AND THREAT OF IMPEACHMENTThe US getting embroiled in the Iran-Israel war isn't just slippery for oil prices, it's a slippery slope for Trump's legacy too. American leaders have already started calling for Trump's impeachment over the unilateral man who was eyeing the Nobel Peace Prize just hours ago and had been formally nominated by its lapdog Pakistan has made the US a party to a regional Trump's first stint saw him pull out troops from Afghanistan and broker the Abraham Accords, which would have normalised Israel's ties with Arab now, just six months into his second stint, Trump has got the US into what he branded earlier as "forever wars".Foreign wars and attempts at regime changes haven't had the desired results for most American decision to join the war, though cheered by some, comes against the wishes of many Republicans and MAGA at war at home with his detention and deportations of immigrants, Trump seems to have made himself a fair game for impeachment with the war in Iran."The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Congresswoman from New York, wrote on said his proudest legacy would be that of a peacemaker and unifier but has got the US into another war. If the damages to the three nuclear sites and its nuclear programme are significant, Iran's retaliation will be furious. The world would be cautiously watching how it all Watch
Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
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 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. READ MORE '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 programme. 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. 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 programme 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 programme 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 Organisation 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. 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.' 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 US 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 U.S. 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. [ Pakistan says it will nominate Donald Trump for Nobel Peace Prize Opens in new window ] '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.' – Reuters
TimesLIVE
17 hours ago
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
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.' The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities. But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick. Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator 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 programme. 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. 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 programme may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its programme 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 programme 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 Organisation 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.' 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 US 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 affect, 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.'
CTV News
a day ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Former advisor warns U.S. strike on Iran 'almost unstoppable' within two weeks
Watch Fmr. State Dept. advisor Aaron David Miller weighs in on Israel-Iran tensions, and a possible U.S. strike within Trump's two-week window.
