Trump's gamble on Iran: Nuclear threat ended? Or the start of 'endless war'?
The highest hope of President Donald Trump's bombing of Iran: A rogue nuclear program that had defied a half-dozen of his predecessors has finally been destroyed.
The deepest fear: Just four years after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan ended America's longest war, the United States is now enmeshed in another war in a volatile region, with perilous and uncertain consequences.
"Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror," Trump said in a late-night announcement in the East Room on June 21, interrupting Americans' Saturday night plans with news that B-2 bombers had dropped the world's most powerful conventional bombs on three sites considered crucial to Tehran's nuclear program. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace."
That's the calculation behind "Operation Midnight Hammer," anyway − that despite its initial bluster, Tehran will be forced to abandon its nuclear program.
But Trump acknowledged there were other possibilities.
"Remember, there are many targets left," he said, surrounded by a solemn-looking trio of advisers − Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill."
The White House debate over whether to launch the bombers put at odds some of Trump's most fundamental impulses.
One is his fervent opposition in all three of his presidential campaigns against "forever wars," including the costly and controversial conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His "America First" agenda reflects a determination to focus less on places like Ukraine and more on challenges close to home.
Though most Republican congressional leaders praised the president for the decision, some people prominent in the MAGA movement did not. "This is not our fight," Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene complained on social media. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war."
On the other hand, Trump is also famously impatient with problems that have frustrated standard solutions. Witness, for instance, his willingness to press the limits of the law in identifying and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants.
The lengthy efforts at negotiation with Iran, like much of diplomacy, seemed unlikely to reach the sort of dramatic and decisive conclusion he favors.
The bombing of Iran also reflects his alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who argues that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to his country. For the prime minister, achieving his decades-old dream of destroying that program is the stuff of legacy.
It's the stuff of Trump's legacy, too − a powerful message for a president who cannot run for the Oval Office again.
Netanyahu struck that chord. "Congratulations, President Trump," he said in Tel Aviv. "His leadership today has created a pivot in history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace."
For better or worse, this will be Trump's war.
For one thing, he didn't seek the approval of Congress, which under the Constitution has the right to declare war, though the president has broad authority to order the use of military force. The War Powers Act, passed after President Richard Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, requires presidents to notify Congress and limits the length of deployments.
After the U.S. bombers had left Iranian airspace, the administration immediately notified congressional leaders, Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing early June 22.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had risked dragging the United States into a long war "without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community, and without explaining to the American people what's at stake."
Those will be the elements of the debate ahead, in echoes of the Iraq War. How serious was the Iranian nuclear threat? And how will voters weigh the stakes and the cost?
In Istanbul, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused Trump of having "deceived his own voters" by launching a strike despite his campaign promises. The U.S. administration holds "sole and full responsibility for the consequences of its actions," he said. But he didn't specify whether Iran would retaliate against U.S. forces in the region.
Hours after the bunker-buster bombs were dropped, Iran launched a new round of missiles toward Israel. On June 23, the foreign minister plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an ally but one who has his own war to fight.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump's gamble on Iran: Threat ended? Or the start of 'endless war'?

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Around Military Bases in the U.S., Unease Over What Comes Next
For some families who gathered this weekend at Fort Benning in Georgia, the past few days have served as a solemn reminder of the unsettling emotions military service can bring. On Friday, a group of Army enlistees graduated from basic training. On Saturday, President Trump bombed Iran. On Sunday, service members and their loved ones pondered an uncertain future. 'People can lose their life, so I'm worried,' said Michele Bixby, 24, of upstate New York, whose brother had just graduated. 'But it's what he wanted to do; it's what he loves to do. He's going to move forward with it no matter what.' One day after the administration announced it had carried out airstrikes at three nuclear sites in Iran, the mood in some communities around military bases on U.S. soil varied from firm support to bitter disagreement. But one sentiment stood out among those interviewed: concern for the safety of America's troops everywhere. No one knows how the strikes on Iran could affect service members. Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, emphasized on Sunday that the administration did not want an open-ended war. But Iranian leaders have vowed to retaliate, and U.S. military installations in the Middle East, with more than 40,000 active-duty troops and civilians employed by the Pentagon, are already potential targets. That reality, along with the potential repercussions for the entire military, was on the minds of many people around U.S. bases at home, even as service members accepted that reality as part of the job. 'A lot of the families around here are quickly realizing this is a real threat; this is something we need to be worried about,' said Meghan Gilles, 37, a self-described military brat who works in the Army Reserve's human resources division at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, a training site and home to the 101st Airborne Division. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


CNBC
25 minutes ago
- CNBC
CNBC Daily Open: Have Trump's strikes on Iran bolstered or eroded his credibility?
United States on Saturday conducted air strikes on three of Iran's nuclear sites, entering Israel's war against Tehran. The timing was unexpected. On Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump said he was still considering U.S. involvement and would arrive at a decision "within the next two weeks." Financial and political analysts had largely taken that phrase as code word for inaction. "There is also skepticism that the 'two-week' timetable is a too familiar saying used by the President to delay making any major decision," wrote Jay Woods, chief global strategist at Freedom Capital Markets. Indeed, Trump has commonly neglected to follow up after giving a "two week" timeframe on major actions, according to NBC News. And who can forget the TACO trade? It's an acronym that stands for "Trump Always Chickens Out" — which describes a pattern of the U.S. president threatening heavy tariffs, weighing down markets, but pausing or reducing their severity later on, helping stocks to rebound. "Trump has to bury the TACO before the TACO buries him ... he's been forced to stand down on many occasion, and that has cost him a lot of credibility," said David WOO, CEO of David Woo Unbound. And so Trump followed up on his threat, and ahead of the proposed two-week timeline. "There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days," Trump said on Saturday evening. But given Trump's criticism of U.S. getting involved in wars under other presidents, does America bombing Iran add to his credibility, or erode it further? The U.S. strikes Iran U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday said the United States had attacked Iranian nuclear sites, pushing America into Israel's war with its longtime rival. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Sunday that "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated." The decision to attack Iran engages the American military in active warfare in the Middle East — something Trump had vowed to avoid. Iran calls attacks 'outrageous'Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Sunday said Tehran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty and people after the "outrageous" U.S. attacks on three of its major nuclear enrichment facilities. Iranian state-owned media, meanwhile, reported that Iran's parliament backed closing the Strait of Hormuz, citing a senior lawmaker. The U.S. on Sunday called on China to prevent Iran from doing so. Stock futures in U.S. retreatU.S. futures slid Sunday evening stateside as investors reacted to Washington's strikes on Iran. On Friday, U.S. markets mostly fell. The S&P 500 lost 0.22%, its third consecutive losing session, while the Nasdaq Composite retreated 0.51%. But the Dow Jones Industrial Average eked out a 0.08% gain. The pan-European Stoxx 600 index ticked up 0.13%, but ended the week 1.5% lower. Oil jumps but bitcoin slumpsOil prices jumped Sunday evening in the U.S., its first trading session after Saturday's strikes. U.S. crude oil rose $1.76, or 2.38%, to $75.60 per barrel, while global benchmark Brent was up $1.80, or 2.34%, to $78.81 per barrel. Meanwhile, bitcoin prices briefly dipped below the $99,000 mark Sunday, its lowest level in more than a month, before paring losses. It's now trading around $100,940, down 1.5%. [PRO] Eyes on inflation reading Where markets go this week will depend on whether the conflict in the Middle East escalates after the U.S.' involvement. Investors should also keep an eye on economic data. May's personal consumptions expenditure price index, the Federal Reserve's preferred gauge of inflation, comes out Friday, and will tell if tariffs are starting to heat up inflation. How regime change in Iran could affect global oil prices Senior Israeli officials said this week that their military campaign against Iran could trigger the fall of the regime, an event that would have enormous implications for the global oil market. There are no signs that the regime in Iran is on the verge of collapse, said Scott Modell, CEO of the consulting firm Rapidan Energy Grop. But further political destabilization in Iran "could lead to significantly higher oil prices sustained over extended periods," said Natasha Kaneva, head of global commodities research at JPMorgan, in a note to clients this week. There have been eight cases of regime change in major oil-producing countries since 1979, according to JPMorgan. Oil prices spiked 76% on average at their peak in the wake of these changes, before pulling back to stabilize at a price about 30% higher compared to pre-crisis levels, according to the bank.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Nervous': Trump strikes spook ASX
Oil prices have surged as the rest of the market wobbled on Monday morning, with the ASX 200 suffering a 'very nervous start' to the trading week. The ASX 200 fell 44.30 points or 0.52 per cent to 8,461.20 on the opening bells, as investors weighed up the risks in the Middle East. The Aussie dollar also slumped, falling from US64.94 cents to US64.48 as the tension escalates. Investors are worried about two major potential escalations in the conflict, with either the closure of the Strait of Hormuz or an all-out regional war negatively impacting the price of oil. Cutting off the Strait of Hormuz off could send the price of oil above $US100 a barrel as the important 20 mile stretch is the primary route of exports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, and Kuwait. senior financial market analyst Kyle Rodda said traders will be looking to gauge risks of energy shocks and the potential impact of the broader conflict. 'The markets are confronting a very nervous start to the week where the only thing that will matter is the fallout from the US missile strike on Iranian nuclear assets over the weekend,' Mr Rodda said. 'There's already some talk of [closing the Strait of Hormuz] from the Iranianans, with the instability in the region and risks to critical infrastructure alone enough to worry energy markets.' US secretary of state Marco Rubio said closing the crucial Strait of Hormuz would be a 'suicidal' move to the Iranian regime. Mr Rubio said closing the strait would affect the US, but it would have 'a lot more impact on the rest of the world,' particularly on China. 'That would be a suicidal move on [Iran's] part, because I think the whole world would come against them if they did that,' Mr Rubio said. On Saturday (Sunday AEST), US forces confirmed strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities in the latest flair up between Israel and Iran. US President Donald Trump said the three nuclear sites in Iran – Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz were 'completely obliterated' but this is yet to be independently verified. The armed conflict sent the price of Brent crude oil surging to above $US80 a barrel, after sitting around $US65 in the two weeks prior to the start of the most recent conflict in the region. Mr Rodda said the first move by markets will be a possible kneejerk, with traders taking a shoot first ask questions later approach. 'But as the dust settles and more of the facts become known – especially the extent of the damage achieved by the US – the markets will turn to gaming out the likely course of events from here and quantifying the risks to asset prices.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data