
Retaliation, regime change, sleeper cells and impeachment: The looming questions in the wake of Trump's attack on Iran
President Donald Trump bombed Iran's nuclear facilities just weeks after Israel began attacking the nation over concerns it was developing a nuclear weapon.
What happens next? Should Americans expect retaliation from Iran? If so, where, and in what form?
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Sunday that what happens next will largely be up to Iran and its response to the U.S.'s bombing.
'If the regime wants peace, we're ready for peace. If they want to do something else, they're incredibly vulnerable. They can't even protect their own airspace,' Rubio said on CBS's Face the Nation.
How did the US attack Iran?
On June 21, Trump initiated Operation Midnight Hammer, which saw B-2 bombers and missiles strike Iran's nuclear facilities where the U.S. and Israel believe Iran was enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons.
The Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites were hit by a salvo of 30 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles — cruise missiles with a range of at least 1,000 miles — fired from American submarines. At the Fordow nuclear site, which is located hundreds of feet underground, as many as six 30,000 munitions known as Massive Ordnance Penetrators — which are referred to by the Air Force designation GBU-57A/B — hit the site.
The MOP so-called bunker-buster bombs were designed specifically to attack and destroy hardened facilities such as Fordow which are otherwise protected from typical munitions.
The bombs used against Fordow were dropped from B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flying out of Whitman Air Force Base in Missouri.
Will Iran retaliate?
No one knows, perhaps not even Iranian leaders.
Tehran could choose not to retaliate in an effort to reopen diplomatic options with the U.S., though its unclear if that would stop Israel from continuing to launch missiles into its territory.
In 2020, after Trump assassinated Iranian general Qassim Suleimani, Iran launched a wave of missile attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq, but then pulled back from further retaliation, possibly in order to avoid a larger regional war. Iran could proceed in a similar fashion now.
It's unclear if Ayatollah Khamenei will seek to re-establish diplomatic avenues with Trump.
What can Iran do to the U.S.?
Iran could seek to attack U.S. troops or U.S. assets in the region. The United States has about 40,000 troops stationed across the Middle East, in more than a dozen countries including in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE, and on ships in the region.
It could also target U.S. commerce. Tehran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off a vital shipping lane and blocking oil tankers from entering or leaving the Persian Gulf. Iran also has cyberwarfare capabilities or it could work with allied elements — like Al Qaeda — to carry out proxy attacks on U.S. and Israeli interests in the region.
Is the U.S. at war?
Officially, the U.S. would have to declare war, which requires Congressional approval.
But that is mostly a formality. The U.S. did not declare war on Afghanistan or Iraq but still was involved in "boots on the ground" armed conflict in both countries.
Asked directly during an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker whether the U.S. was now at war with Iran, Vice President JD Vance replied: 'No Kristen, we're not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.'
Is the U.S. aiming for regime change?
There have been mixed messages from the Trump administration about whether they are trying to bring down the Ayatollah's regime. The U.S. stated that regime change was an aim in its 2003 invasion of Iraq – something it achieved but at very great cost and leaving a long and controversial legacy.
Vance told NBC's Kristen Welker on Sunday morning: 'Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.'
However, several hours later, Trump appeared to contradict him with a post on his social media site: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!'
What is the War Powers Resolution and can Trump be impeached over the attack?
Trump's opponents have called his strike illegal, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the president to give Congress a 48-hour notification before taking any military action. It also limits the deployment of U.S. armed forces to 90 days without a formal declaration of war.
Some Democrats have already accused Trump of violating the act.
"The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, posted on X.
If Trump did violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, he could theoretically be impeached, but due to Republicans' control of both the House and the Senate, an impeachment vote would be extremely unlikely to succeed.
'This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense,' Democratic Congressman Sean Casten wrote on X.
What has Iran said about the strikes?
Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi accused the US of breaching international law in a social media post following the strike.
'The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations,' Araghchi said.
He called on the rest of the UN to share in Iran's outrage over the attack, and said that Iran 'reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people'.
'The events this morning [Sunday] are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior," he said.
According to a New York Times report, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has taken shelter in a bunker since the start of Israel's missile attacks, and has named three possible successors to lead the country in the event of his assassination.
What's the deal with sleeper cells?
Following Saturday's strikes, which Trump claimed 'totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, both White House and FBI officials have been on high alert for Iranian sleeper cells.
Sleeper cells consist of spies or terrorists hiding out in the U.S. or Western countries that remain inactive, often living quiet and unassuming lives working regular jobs until they are ordered to act on a mission.
According to reports, Tehran may now try to activate these covert spies – should they exist – after the U.S. joined Israel's military operations against Iran.
Sleeper cells have been broken up in the U.S. in the past, such as in 2010 when 10 Russian sleeper agents were arrested and exchanged in a prisoner swap with Moscow.
Who are Iran's allies?
Iran's allies include some of the same groups and nations that oppose the U.S.'s role on the world's stage.
Iran backs both the Lebanese militant force Hezbollah and Palestinian militants Hamas, and both groups would be considered allies of Iran. The Popular Mobilization Force in Iraq, Yemen's Houthi rebels, and Bashar Al-Assad's loyalists before his ousting in Syria are all also supporters of Iran.
The country has also been supporting Russia in its war against Ukraine, and enjoys a relationship with Moscow. Similarly, Iran maintains a strategic and economic partnership with China.
What has the rest of the world said about the U.S. strikes?
The world's response to Trump's attack in Iran has been mixed, though most statements express concerns over what happens next.
Democrats
The Democrats have condemned Trump's attack, accusing him of pushing the nation toward all-out war with Iran.
House Minority Leader Congressman Hakeem Jeffries issued a scathing response to Trump's attacks.
'President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East,' Congressman Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. 'Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action.'
United Nations
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said he was "gravely alarmed" by Trump's action.
'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security', he said. 'At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.'
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer cautioned Iran to seek a diplomatic response and insisted maintaining stability in the region was a priority, according to a statement from Downing Street.
'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said in a statement.
European Union
The European Union walked the line, saying that it agreed that Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon, but also urging restraint from both Tehran and the U.S. and Israel.
Israel
Israel praised Trump's actions. 'Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a televised address. 'History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime the world's most dangerous weapons.'
Russia
Russia brushed off the attack, saying that it didn't do anything to stop Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.
The deputy head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, former president Dmitry Medvedev, said in a statement that multiple nations would be willing to provide Iran with nuclear weapons — though he did not specify which — and said the strike caused minimal damage to Iran's nuclear facilities.
China
The Chinese foreign ministry also "strongly condemned" the attack, saying they 'seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, and have exacerbated tensions in the Middle East'
'China calls on the parties to the conflict, Israel in particular, to reach a ceasefire as soon as possible, ensure the safety of civilians, and start dialogue and negotiation,' the foreign ministry said on X. 'China stands ready to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East."
Latin/South America and Iran's regional allies
Several Latin and South American countries with left-wing governments condemned Trump's attacks. Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and Chile, all voiced their opposition to the U.S.'s attack.
Iran's allies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, all strongly condemned the attacks in their own statements.

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


Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump agitates for regime change to ‘make Iran great again'
Donald Trump has appeared to agitate for new leadership in Iran. The US president on Sunday suggested a 'regime change' would take place if its leaders were 'unable to make Iran great again'. His comments came just hours after vice president JD Vance and defence secretary Pete Hegseth stressed that Washington was not seeking to topple the Iranian government following US air strikes on its nuclear facilities this weekend. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change?' Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Referencing his 'Maga' (Make America Great Again) movement, he added: 'MIGA!!!' Since striking Iran in the early hours of Sunday, Mr Trump has pressed the country not to retaliate and urged it to return to the negotiating table immediately. At a press conference at the Pentagon on Sunday morning, Mr Hegseth declared: 'This mission was not, has not been, about regime change.' 'We don't want a regime change,' Mr Vance said a short time later. 'We do not want to protract this.' He added: 'We want to end the nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.' Senior US officials have warned that forcing out Iran's government would leave a power vacuum and result in another protracted American war in the Middle East. Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the UN, said on Sunday that Israel would like to see regime change in Iran but would not seek to engineer it. 'That's for the Iranian people to decide, not us,' he said. Also on Sunday, John Bolton, Mr Trump's former national security adviser, claimed Iran was 'on the verge' of regime change following the US attacks and said the president would be forced to use 'brutal force' if Tehran retaliated. Mr Trump previously vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, American officials revealed last week. In the early hours of Sunday the US launched strikes on Iran, hitting three nuclear bases at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Mr Trump described the action as 'a spectacular military success' that had 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. He said in an earlier Truth Social post: 'We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!) but, as usual, and despite all of the praise and accolades received, this 'lightweight' Congressman is against what was so brilliantly achieved last night.' Israeli officials on Sunday said they believe Iran's heavily-fortified nuclear site at Fordow sustained serious damage from the strikes but had not been completely destroyed. A US official told the New York Times it had been taken 'off the table'. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, issued a more conservative assessment than the president on Sunday. He said Iran's nuclear capabilities had been 'degraded' and 'set back from a technical standpoint', but stopped short of saying they had been outright destroyed. On Sunday, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, claimed Israel was 'close' to wiping out Iran's nuclear programme and ballistic missiles. He vowed not to be dragged into a 'war of attrition with Iran', saying: 'When we achieve our objectives, the fighting will stop.'


Sky News
27 minutes ago
- Sky News
Syria: 22 killed after suicide bomber opens fire at church - and then detonates explosive vest
At least 22 people have been killed after a suicide bomber opened fire at a church in Syria - and then detonated an explosive vest. This is the first such incident since Bashar al Assad was toppled in December, and officials claim the attacker was a member of Islamic State. It happened at a Greek Orthodox church in Damascus, with estimates suggesting that 350 worshippers were praying there at the time. Witnesses said the perpetrator had his face covered when he began shooting - and blew himself up as crowds attempted to remove him from the building. A security source told Reuters that two men were involved in the attack, with a priest saying he saw a second gunman at the entrance. Officials say 63 people were injured, and children were among the casualties. Syria's information minister, Hamza Mostafa, condemned the terrorist attack - writing on X: "This cowardly act goes against the civic values that bring us together. "We will not back down from our commitment to equal citizenship... and we also affirm the state's pledge to exert all its efforts to combat criminal organisations." Reports suggest that IS has attempted to attack several churches in Syria since Assad fell, but this is the first time they have succeeded. Footage filmed by Syria's civil defence, the White Helmets, showed scenes of destruction inside the church - including bloodied floors and shattered pews. The Greek foreign ministry says it "unequivocally condemns the abhorrent terrorist suicide bombing", and called on Syria "to guarantee the safety" of Christians with new measures.


Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
Times letters: Britain and the tinderbox in the Middle East
Write to letters@ Sir, Sir Keir Starmer has called on Iran to 'return to the negotiating table' after the US bombed its nuclear sites. But treating Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner while it refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist only reinforces Tehran's rejectionist stance. History provides a clear road map: recognition leads to peace. Of the 164 countries that now recognise Israel, none are engaged in active warfare with it. Egypt's recognition in 1979 ended decades of conflict. Jordan's recognition in 1994 transformed enemies into sometime partners. The Abraham Accords demonstrated that recognition can unlock prosperity and co-operation even without resolving every regional grievance. Regional issues need and deserve resolution but they cannot be resolved in an environment where a significant power actively works towards the destruction of Israel. Negotiations remain preferable to conflict, but Israel needs to be involved in these talks as a recognised sovereign state. Without recognition and meaningful bilateral negotiations between Israel and Iran, the present situation will continue as a zero-sum game, which Israel simply cannot afford to lose. Tony Morcowitz Brighton and Hove Sir, When Sir Keir Starmer announced the Chagos Islands giveaway, he said that surrendering sovereignty was necessary because the UK had to be seen to uphold international law. Now he has gone on to publish statements in support of the US bombing of Iran. He is publicly supporting a flagrant breach of international law forbidding unprovoked attacks on other nations and, indeed, is speaking in defiance of advice from his attorney-general warning that any attack on Iran could be illegal. The government asserted that the international-law principles embodied by the Chagos deal would earn Britain respect in the 'global south', but in light of the UK's support for Israeli-American actions against Iran, all that the rest of the world will now observe is that Britain's commitment to international law is equivocal and inconsistent. Robert Frazer Salford Sir, International events emphasise the paucity of the UK's air defences, in particular the capability to counter attacks by ballistic missiles. Should the situation deteriorate to the extent that we are threatened, this will be critical, with Britain's best anti-missile defence platforms being six Type 45 destroyers, one of which is deployed with HMS Queen Elizabeth. Other Type 45s may or may not be available, with a number in refit, but ship-based systems are insufficient to defend the entire nation. Recent announcements on defence, from the strategic defence review through to promises to raise spending by a few percentage points in future, will do nothing to repair our non-existent integrated air defence. The government needs to act now and procure anti-ballistic systems. Group Captain Michael Norris St Austell, Cornwall Sir, In the raid on RAF Brize Norton (news, Jun 21), one of the engines on the Voyager aircraft was so badly damaged by the red paint sprayed on it by Palestine Action activists that it is said that the tanker is out of action and a new engine will cost £25 million. Surely this is nonsense: our planes are so vulnerable than an enemy would only have to drop paint over them to make them useless in war time? Brian RJ Simpson Gosport, Hants Sir, My father, Michael Beetham, was station commander of RAF Khormaksar in Aden, Yemen, in the mid-1960s, during a period of heightened tensions. As a small boy, I watched as he set off in the evenings to drive around the perimeter fence in his Land Rover. Sometimes he took me with him. He would stop and talk to personnel and inspect fences. He went on to be the longest-serving Chief of the Air Staff since Lord Trenchard, founder of the RAF. I wonder who carries out such checks these days at bases like Brize Norton? Alex Beetham Woodditton, Cambs Sir, There are many reasons why the House of Lords may not survive in its present form. Hubris is certainly one. For unnamed peers to tell The Times that they will use 'black arts' to 'kill off' the assisted dying bill and employ 'every means possible' to prevent it becoming law is hubris of the highest order (news, Jun 21). The Lords can and should seek to improve the bill through its scrutiny. That is indeed its role. But to seek fundamentally to thwart the will of the elected Commons is not. It is not just the future of the bill that will be at stake in this regard. So too will the future of an unelected second chamber. Sir Leigh Lewis Watford Sir, In just three days the concept of laws being based on Judeo-Christian principles has been removed by the House of Commons. Aborting a full-term unborn child will no longer be a criminal offence and assisting someone to kill themselves was approved. MPs have replaced a morality based on respect for life by a culture of death. Neither these changes were in the Labour Party manifesto and the House of Lords should therefore not feel constrained in refusing to endorse them. Nicholas Bennett Minister of health for Wales, 1990-92; Bromley, Kent Sir, I am horrified by the moral ambiguity demonstrated by the government. After endless debate, the third reading of the assisted dying bill has narrowly been passed, a compassionate piece of legislation that will give terminally ill people more control over their lives. By contrast, after only two hours' debate the government has amended abortion regulations to allow women to have a termination at any stage of their pregnancy, without fear of prosecution. The 24-week limit for legal abortion was set to protect viable foetuses. This amendment sanctions the murder of babies capable of leading independent lives. I hope there is sufficient wisdom among the members of the House of Lords to persuade the Commons to rethink the unethical decision they have made. Frances MacDonald Stratford-upon-Avon Sir, The reports that HS2 may now cost £100 billion came in the same week that Nice concluded the known benefits of the new Alzheimer's drugs lecanemab and donanemab do not justify the expense of funding them through the public healthcare system (news, Jun 19; letter, Jun 21). Given that the government is likely to have to make stark choices in its next budget, the choice of either cutting 30 minutes off journey times between London to Birmingham or extending the meaningful lives of thousands of people each year could not be starker. If Rachel Reeves's repeated statements that her decisions reflect the choice of the people are true, then let's ask them directly which they'd rather have. Dr Barry Johnson Sheffield Sir, Settle to Carlisle is now seen as one of the world's greatest railway journeys. However, the line started out in difficulty and there are some interesting comparisons to be made with HS2. The estimate to build the line was £2 million, but the challenges of building a route through the Pennines resulted in the cost and time to completion doubling. The line opened to freight traffic 150 years ago (passengers a year later). The final cost was about £500 million in today's money, and it took five years to build. Admittedly it is only 72 miles long (compared with 120 miles for HS2) and the hundreds of boys employed were paid half a crown (12.5p) per day. The railway today is a magnificent reminder of the vision of the Midland Railway Company, which sponsored it, and the tenacity and ingenuity of those who overcame the challenges of a hostile environment to build it. I wonder if in 150 years HS2 will be as popular — assuming of course that it is completed. Dr Bryan Gray Hunsonby, Cumbria Sir, It is nothing short of insanity that elite rugby union players are about to embark on a tour to Australia with the British & Irish Lions after another very lengthy domestic season, when there is clear evidence showing a dose-response relationship between head impacts and neurodegenerative disease. The longer and more intensely one plays contact or collision sports, the higher the risk of brain damage. The Lions tour — a gruelling and commercially driven tournament — is being promoted as a pinnacle of achievement. Where is the duty of care to players? Where are the safeguards and transparent risk disclosures? Rugby cannot continue to ignore the realities of repeated brain trauma in pursuit of nostalgia and profit. It must start putting welfare above spectacle. Alix Popham Ret'd professional rugby union player; Welsh international, 33 caps; Newport Sir, You report that the late Queen did indeed carry cash, for betting on the races (news, Jun 21). As a young journalist at The Sun in the Eighties I was sent to report on the Derby. The press box was next to the royal box and we all saw Her Majesty dash down to the front to watch a winner triumph. I was designated to ask her: 'Ma'am, did you have a bet on the winning horse?' I leaned over from the box to be faced by the back of Prince Philip, who was chatting to the Queen. My first attempt was ignored and feeling embarrassed and slightly annoyed I tried again. Philip drifted off and so I repeated the question. 'Did I what?' she replied frostily. Red-faced and sweating I stumbled through it again, when she graced me with a beautiful smile and said: 'Oh no, my dear, I never bet!' The next year a barrier was erected between the two boxes so that she would not be approached again. Muriel Freeman (née Burden) South Shields Sir, Car horns don't need to be loud to be effective (letters, Jun 17-21). When I was living in Bath in the early 1970s I drove an MGB, which I had bought from a friend. He had fitted a trio of strident air horns, but I discovered that if I pressed the button very gently the horns would emit a gasping or panting sound. Being very immature at the time I occasionally made this happen while waiting as a pretty girl crossed the road. This sometimes produced an amused response, but not always. One of the recipients of this attention, a particularly pretty girl, subsequently recognised me when we met at a party and she ticked me off for my uncouth behaviour, which I never repeated. In October we will have been married for 50 years. Richard Le Masurier Milford-on-Sea, Hants Sir, My husband was lucky enough to get ten birthday cards from me last year (letters, 18, 19 & 21). After forgetting to buy one for him I simply added 'and Wendy' to the cards he had received from other people. Wendy Rayner Huddersfield Sir, Dominic Sandbrook's article on class and how to define a gentleman (comment, Jun 21) reminded me of an events notice I saw when stationed in the British Army of the Rhine with the King's Own Scottish Borderers in the mid-60s. Those invited to a Minden Day dance were: 'Officers and their Ladies, NCOs and their Wives, and Other Ranks and their Women-Folk.' Bill Wells Wisbech, Cambs Sir, I've always felt rather proud of the fact that the Yiddish word 'mensch' means much the same as 'gentleman' but without any class implications — or gender implications either; a woman can be a mensch too. Or not, as the case may be. Margaret Lesser Bowdon, Greater Manchester Sir, Mark Twain, as is so often the case, hit the nail on the head. A gentleman, he said, is someone who knows how to play the banjo and doesn't. Dr David Bogod Nottingham Write to letters@