Washington: After ordering US strikes on Iran, US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that Tehran must now make peace or face further attacks. The US strikes could spur Iran to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil artery, or attack 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, President 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. A senior White House official stated 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 authorized the military action after being 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 great success of the strikes, which he said included 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 be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, asserting its program is for purely peaceful purposes.
The Arms Control Association, a non-partisan US-based organization advocating for arms control legislation, stated that military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy. The group emphasized that 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.
Eric Lob, an assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, suggested that Iran’s next move remains an open question and could include hitting soft targets of the US and Israel inside and outside the region. He also indicated the possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table, although in a weaker position, or seek a diplomatic solution. In the immediate aftermath of the US strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions.
Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization declared it would not allow the development of its national industry to be halted, and an Iranian state television commentator stated that 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 US 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. Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington, cautioned against aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns, highlighting the many failed US missions in the Middle East.
Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, noted that Iran’s leadership would quickly engage in disproportionate attacks if it felt its survival was threatened. However, Tehran will also have to consider the consequences. 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 facing strong pushback from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will 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 term. 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.”