Trump promised to end wars — Now he's starting one

Time of India

3 hours ago

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.