How US Airstrikes Created Win-Win Chance For Iran, Diplomatic Fix For Trump
New Delhi:
With the US carrying out precision airstrikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran, all eyes are now on Tehran's response. Iran now faces a tough choice: a strong retaliation may lead to further escalation, but a meek response may result in the national leadership losing popular support. There is another possibility: Iran may not strike back at the US now.
Trump Throws A Bait
The Donald Trump administration struck three nuclear installations in Iran -- Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. This is the first time the US has attacked facilities in Iran since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. However, the precision nature of the strike suggests that Trump has, in effect, thrown the ball into Iran's court. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier," the US President said after the airstrikes.
The US has thrown a bait. If Iran chooses to respond by targeting US facilities, Washington DC would then step up its offensive and push the "we didn't start the war" narrative.
What Iran Said After the Attacks
Iran's Foreign Affairs Ministry has condemned the US' "brutal military aggression" and termed it a "grave and unprecedented violation" of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and international law. "The US military aggression against the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of a UN member state - carried out in collusion with the genocidal Israeli regime - once again laid bare the depth of depravity that governs American foreign policy and revealed the extent of hostility harbored by the US ruling establishment against the peace-seeking and independence-loving people of Iran."
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is resolved to defend Iran's territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means against the United States' criminal aggression," Iran has said, urging the UN Security Council to step in.
Why Iran May Not Target the US
It would be reckless of Iran to launch a direct attack on the US at this point. The unequal military capabilities aside, such an attack would give Trump exactly what he wants -- a reason to launch a massive offensive. What Iran may do instead is let Trump have this symbolic victory and continue its attacks against Israel. Doing this keeps Washington out of the war and puts more pressure on Tel Aviv. If the US still targets Iran, it would seem like the aggressor going to war on Israel's behalf.
Diplomatic Dilemma For Trump
In joining the war against Iran, US President Trump has played a major gamble. For long, Trump has spoken against "forever wars" fought by former US Presidents abroad, but his escalation today flies in the face of that rhetoric. While the Democrats in the US have stepped up their political attacks following the airstrikes, Trump also runs the risk of alienating a section of his Republican supporters. If the US manages to get Iran to capitulate, Trump can still claim a major win. But if that doesn't happen, he will be blamed for drawing Washington into another protracted conflict. This is also bad optics for brand Trump, especially at a time when Pakistan has backed him for the Nobel Peace Prize, stressing that his intervention in the India-Pakistan conflict last month "stands as a testament to his role as a genuine peacemaker". India has repeatedly emphasised that the ceasefire was the result of direct diplomacy between New Delhi and Islamabad, with the latter reaching out after India targeted key military installations in Pakistan.
A Win-Win Option For Iran
Today's airstrikes in Iran provide a big opportunity for Iran to shift its nuclear strategy. Iran had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and ratified it in 1970 as a non-nuclear-weapon state. Amid the spiralling conflict with Israel, Tehran had earlier said its lawmakers are preparing a bill for withdrawal from the NPT. The US airstrikes provide it with a better option. It can now simply say it does not know what has happened to its enriched uranium supplies due to wartime conditions. This would create a strategic ambiguity, and this alone could deter future attacks and keep Western powers guessing.
This approach offers Iran three advantages: (1) it can delay a direct confrontation with the US (2) provide a justification to step away from nuclear transparency (3) provide leverage in any post-war negotiation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
40 minutes ago
- News18
'Order Mass Production Of Coffins': Iranian Lawmaker Warns Trump After Strikes On Nuclear Sites
Last Updated: It comes after Trump's announcement on Sunday, in which he confirmed that US forces had launched targeted strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites. An Iranian member of parliament issued a sharp warning to the United States following recent airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, saying that President Donald Trump should 'order mass production" of 'coffins" for American forces. Qasem Ravanbakhsh, a representative from Iran's Qom province, vowed retaliation against what he called the 'terrorist forces of America." 'Trump should order mass production from coffin-making companies as soon as possible to transfer the bodies of American military personnel stationed in the region," said Ravanbakhsh. It comes after Trump's announcement on Sunday, in which he confirmed via Truth Social that US forces had launched targeted strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites. In a brief national address, Trump claimed the operation had 'obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment infrastructure and thwarted its alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Ravanbakhsh, however, rejected Trump's claim, specifically disputing the extent of damage inflicted on the underground Fordow facility, believed to be a key site for uranium enrichment. Speaking to Iran's semi-official Tasnim News Agency, he said, 'The damage to the Fordow facilities is not as great as the American media and the criminal Trump are saying, and the underground facilities have not been damaged." He further stated that the international community 'should be confident" that Iran's 'nuclear knowledge" remains intact and 'cannot be destroyed by these crimes." Araghchi warned that the United States would face 'everlasting consequences" for its actions. Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in a statement broadcast on state television, warned the United States to 'expect regrettable responses" following its strikes on Tehran's nuclear facilities. First Published: June 22, 2025, 17:29 IST
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump promised to end wars — Now he's starting one
Donald Trump campaigned as the president who would end 'forever wars'. He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, and insisted he would resolve global conflicts through strength, not entanglement. But with a single decision, ordering strikes on Iran's core nuclear facilities on June 22, Trump has pushed the US into its most direct confrontation with Tehran in decades. By aligning with Israel's escalating shadow war, he has risked a broader regional conflict and undercut the central tenet of his foreign policy: keeping America out of new wars. 'Remember, there are many targets left… But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,' Trump said in a televised address after the attack. The strikes on Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, all key to Iran's uranium enrichment efforts, marked the most aggressive US action since the 2020 killing of General Qassem Soleimani. They have cast a long shadow over Trump's 'America First' approach. Is this Trump's Iraq moment? With the strike, Trump may have crossed a line he long promised to avoid: drawing America into another Middle Eastern conflict. Live Events Despite repeated pledges to end endless wars and prioritise domestic concerns, his decision to target Iran's nuclear sites has revived memories of 2003, when the US invaded Iraq over suspected weapons of mass destruction. Then it was Saddam Hussein. Now, it is Iran's estimated 7–10 day 'breakout time' to a nuclear bomb. In both cases, the consequences are unpredictable. Trump once styled himself as the anti-war president. He criticised the Iraq invasion, pulled troops from Afghanistan, and insisted on avoiding military entanglements. 'Great nations do not fight endless wars,' he told Congress in 2019, often claiming he was the only modern president who had not started a war. That narrative may no longer hold. At odds with his own Throughout his political career, Trump questioned US military interventions. His 2016 and 2024 campaigns both promised to scale back global commitments and bring troops home. Under the 2020 Doha Agreement, his administration committed to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan, completed in 2021 under President Biden. Trump frequently cited this as proof of his restraint. Yet the recent decision to authorise strikes in Iran has undermined that claim. According to reports in the Financial Times, Trump's rhetoric turned confrontational during a Gulf visit last month. 'We want them to be a wonderful, safe, great country, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon,' he said. 'This is an offer that will not last forever.' Days before the strike, he left the G7 summit in Canada to consider military options. A two-week deadline given to Tehran was unexpectedly cut short, triggering the Saturday night offensive. Inside the strike The operation was led by US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers, which deployed six 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B 'bunker busters' on Fordow. These weapons are designed to target deeply fortified facilities. Natanz, a central hub for enrichment, houses thousands of IR-1 and IR-6 centrifuges. Isfahan contains uranium conversion units vital for fuel fabrication. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), these facilities are crucial to Iran's nuclear ambitions. As of May 2025, the IAEA confirmed that Iran had enriched uranium to 60%, , dangerously close to the 90% threshold needed for weapons-grade material. approaching weapons-grade levels. US intelligence estimated Iran could accumulate enough fissile material for one nuclear device in under ten days. This rapidly narrowing 'breakout time' was cited by Washington and Tel Aviv as justification for the preventive strike. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Trump's move as 'bold and historic'. Risks and strategic blowback Trump's advisers reportedly believed Iran would avoid full-scale retaliation due to economic struggles and domestic unrest. According to Financial Times, the president's inner circle described the strike as a 'limited but decisive' step to neutralise a threat without prolonged involvement. 'It all depends on how the Iranian regime reacts,' said Brian Katulis of the Middle East Institute. 'Iran's regional network remains lethal and capable of spreading more instability.' Dana Stroul, a former Pentagon official, said the attack undermined Trump's diplomatic claims. 'Trump repeatedly emphasised deal-making and avoiding conflict. Yet here we are, five months into his second term, and the US is in direct conflict with Iran.'In Washington, the response was swift and polarised. While some Republicans defended the action, critics raised alarm over the lack of congressional approval. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for Trump's impeachment, while Republican Thomas Massie labelled the strike unconstitutional. Senator Chris Van Hollen said, 'The war in Iraq was also started under false pretences. The US should not have joined Netanyahu in launching a war of choice.' Others in the GOP stood by Trump. House Speaker Mike Johnson described it as 'America First policy in action'. The electoral gamble At the time of the strike, Trump's approval rating stood at 46.9%, with 51% disapproval, according to RealClearPolitics. 'He still has political room, especially if Iran retaliates,' said Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment, reported FT. 'But if Americans are killed or oil prices soar, that could change quickly.' Troops on the line The US maintains around 40,000 troops across 19 bases in the region, according to the New Indian Express , citing the Council on Foreign Relations. These locations are now potential targets. Mehran Kamrava, a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, highlighted the risks. 'That means there are 40,000 targets we can hit,' an Iranian commander reportedly said. Energy markets on edge Oil markets reacted swiftly. Brent crude rose 28% in just two weeks, from $61 in mid-May to $78 after the attack, according to J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Iran accounts for only 1.6% of global oil exports, but its geographic position gives it leverage. The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil supply flows, could become a chokepoint in any conflict. The Economics Observatory estimates that a $10 rise in oil prices adds 0.7 percentage points to inflation and cuts GDP by 0.2% in advanced economies. The last time a similar shock occurred, during the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, it triggered stagflation in the US, UK and parts of Europe. A history of intervention This is not the first time the US has intervened in Iran with lasting consequences: In 1953, the CIA helped orchestrate a coup that ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. In 1988, Operation Praying Mantis saw US naval forces sink Iranian ships. In 2020, Trump ordered the killing of General Soleimani, bringing both nations to the brink of war. Each move was described as decisive, but each deepened hostilities. When is war worth it? For Trump, the answer may be: When it prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. That has been his red line. But the strike has raised a much broader and more urgent question, for lawmakers, voters, and US allies alike: What are the limits of presidential war-making power in the 21st century? Senator Jack Reed, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, put it plainly: 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' as reported by FT.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tulsi Gabbard snubbed by Trump? DNI missing from White House Situation Room photos during Iran strike
File photo of Tulsi Gabbard and US President Donald Trump The White House released official photographs of President Donald Trump in the Situation Room as US forces carried out precision airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, but one conspicuous absence has fuelled speculation, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was nowhere to be seen. The images show Trump, wearing his signature red 'Make America Great Again' hat, surrounded by top members of his national security team: Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. But Gabbard, a central figure in America's intelligence hierarchy, was not in any of the official photos released. Her absence follows a very public disagreement with Trump over Iran's nuclear intentions. In March, Gabbard had testified to Congress that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. But last week, Trump directly rebuked her assessment. 'She is wrong,' he told reporters. 'I don't care what she said.' The timing of the omission has raised eyebrows. Just days before the strike, Gabbard issued a post on X revising her earlier stance, writing, 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalise the assembly.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo She also accused the media of misrepresenting her testimony and added, 'President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree. ' Still, the public nature of their disagreement and her absence during a moment of such significance appears to suggest more than a scheduling conflict. Historically, the Director of National Intelligence has been present in high-stakes moments like the 2011 Osama bin Laden raid, the 2020 strike on Qasem Soleimani, and multiple post-9/11 national security sessions. Tulsi herself had appeared in earlier White House briefings on Iran in June. Trump's decision to greenlight the strikes came just two days after the White House had publicly said he would take two weeks to decide. Instead, by Saturday evening, US aircraft had destroyed three key nuclear sites using bunker-busting bombs and Tomahawk missiles. Trump declared the mission a success, saying it 'obliterated' Iran's enrichment facilities and warning Tehran, 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran. ' The strike has divided lawmakers. Rep. Thomas Massie called it unconstitutional, while Rep. Ro Khanna said it lacked congressional authorisation. The administration, meanwhile, insists the action was necessary to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.
