Washington: After ordering US strikes on Iran, US President Donald Trump stated on Saturday that Tehran must now make peace or face further attacks. The US strikes could prompt Iran to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil artery, or by attacking US military bases and allies in the Middle East.
According to France24.com, with his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, directly joining Israel’s air attack on its regional arch foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has intervened militarily in a major foreign conflict, something he had long vowed to avoid. 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.
A senior White House official mentioned that Trump, convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, decided that the strikes were necessary. The go-ahead was given once Trump was assured of a high probability of success, 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 strikes as a great success, noting the use of massive bunker-buster bombs on the main site at Fordow. However, some experts suggested that while Iran’s nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may still persist. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, claiming its program is for peaceful purposes.
The Arms Control Association, a non-partisan US-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, stated that military action is likely to push Iran to conclude that nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy. They added that military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran’s extensive nuclear knowledge, and while the strikes will set Iran’s program back, they will also strengthen Tehran’s resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities.
Eric Lob, an assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, highlighted that Iran’s next move remains uncertain and suggested potential retaliation could include targeting U.S. and Israeli interests both within and outside the region. However, there is also the possibility that Iran may return to negotiations, albeit from a weaker position, or seek a diplomatic resolution.
In the immediate aftermath of the US strikes, Iran demonstrated little willingness to make concessions. Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization declared it would not allow its national industry’s development to be halted, while an Iranian state television commentator stated that every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would now be considered legitimate targets. Iran’s foreign ministry issued a statement early Sunday asserting Tehran’s 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 that Trump indicated this is now the time for peace, but it is unclear and unlikely the Iranians will view it similarly. He suggested this is more likely to open a new chapter of the longstanding US-Iran conflict rather than conclude it.
Some analysts proposed 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 significant reprisals or moves to develop a nuclear weapon. Such a course would introduce additional risks.
Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, warned of the dangers of mission creep and emphasized the historical failures of US moral missions in the Middle East. Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, noted that Iran’s leadership might engage in disproportionate attacks if it felt its survival was threatened, but must also consider the consequences, such as the impact of closing the Strait of Hormuz on China, one of Iran’s few powerful allies.
Trump is also facing strong opposition from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and must contend with resistance from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Having faced no major international crisis in his first term, Trump is now embroiled in one just six months into his second term.
Even if Trump hopes to limit US military involvement in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents. Trump’s slogan of peace through strength is being 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. Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group, commented that Trump’s recent actions suggest that his claims of being a peacemaker were more of a campaign phrase than a strategy.