
Tactical vs ‘strategic success': Trump gambles on force over diplomacy after striking Iran
The US openly escalated its longstanding conflict with Iran by striking its nuclear sites, fuelled by concerns over Iran's potential development of nuclear weapons and following Israel's encouragement.
Trump's decision marks a shift from prior diplomacy, abandoning efforts for a new deal with Iran and intensifying tensions in a region already destabilised since the October 2023 attacks and Israel's recent actions.
Analysts are divided on the consequences of this action, with some seeing it as necessary due to failed diplomacy, and others warning it may entrench Iran's regime or accelerate nuclear ambitions.
For nearly a half-century the United States has squabbled with Iran's Islamic Republic, but the conflict has largely been left in the shadows, with US policymakers believing, often reluctantly, that diplomacy was preferable.
With President Donald Trump's order of strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, the United States – like Israel, which encouraged him – has brought the conflict into the open, and the consequences may not be clear for some time to come.
'We will only know if it succeeded if we can get through the next three to five years without the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which they now have compelling reasons to want,' said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and supporter of the 2003 Iraq war, who is now vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute.
US intelligence had not concluded that Iran was building a nuclear bomb, with Tehran's sensitive atomic work largely seen as a means of leverage, and Iran can be presumed to have taken precautions in anticipation of strikes.
Trita Parsi, an outspoken critic of military action, said Trump 'has now made it more likely that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next five to 10 years'.
'We should be careful not to confuse tactical success with strategic success,' said Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
'The Iraq war was also successful in the first few weeks, but President Bush's declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' did not age well,' he said.
Weak point for Iran
Yet Trump's attack – a week after Israel began a major military campaign – came as the cleric-run state is at one of its weakest points since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the pro-Western shah.
Since the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which enjoys Iran's support, Israel, besides obliterating much of Gaza, has decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah, a militant group that would once reliably strike Israel as Tehran's proxy.
VIDEO: 🇺🇸 🇮🇷 Trump says Iran nuclear sites 'obliterated,' threatens more strikes
President Trump said US air strikes on Sunday "totally obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites, as Washington joined Israel's war with Tehran. In a televised address, Trump warned the United States… pic.twitter.com/2vUnWtS0ky
— AFP News Agency (@AFP) June 22, 2025
Iran's main ally among Arab leaders, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, was also toppled in December.
Supporters of Trump's strike argued that diplomacy was not working, with Iran standing firm on its right to enrich uranium.
'Contrary to what some will say in the days to come, the US administration did not rush to war. In fact, it gave diplomacy a real chance,' said Ted Deutch, a former Democratic congressman who now heads the American Jewish Committee.
'The murderous Iranian regime refused to make a deal,' he said.
Top Senate Republican John Thune pointed to Tehran's threats to Israel and language against the United States and said that the state had 'rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace'.
Abrupt halt to diplomacy
Trump's attack comes almost exactly a decade after former president Barack Obama sealed a deal in which Iran drastically scaled back its nuclear work, which Trump pulled out of in 2018 after coming into office for his first term.
Most of Trump's Republican Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long seen Iran as an existential threat, attacked Obama's deal because it allowed Tehran to enrich uranium at levels well beneath weapons grade and the key clauses had an end date.
But Trump, billing himself a peacemaker, just a month ago said on a visit to Gulf Arab monarchies that he was hopeful for a new deal with Iran, and his administration was preparing new talks when Netanyahu attacked Iran.
This prompted an abrupt U-turn from Trump.
pic.twitter.com/geI6g8YVFZ
— AFP News Agency (@AFP) June 22, 2025
'Trump's decision to cut short his own efforts for diplomacy will also make it much harder to get a deal in the medium and long runs,' said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, which advocates restraint.
'Iran now has no incentive to trust Trump's word or to believe that striking a compromise will advance Iran's interests.'
Iran's religious rulers also face opposition internally. Major protests erupted in 2022 after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, who was detained for defying the regime's rules on covering hair.
Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media that Trump's strikes could either entrench the Islamic Republic or hasten its downfall.
'The US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is an unprecedented event that may prove to be transformational for Iran, the Middle East, US foreign policy, global non-proliferation and potentially even the global order,' he said.
'Its impact will be measured for decades to come.'
Hashtags

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


Newsweek
40 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. Why It Matters The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. What To Know The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. What People Are Saying Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. What Happens Next Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press.


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Hard-Hitting World Leaves EU Soft Power Stranded
Last week, with uncertainty raging over whether the US would join Israel in striking Iran, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto delivered an elegy for a soft-power Europe that looked stranded in a hard-power world. 'We talk about Europe as if Europe counted for something,' he said. 'But its time is over, and I say it with sadness.' It turned out to be a fitting prelude to the weekend's events as Europe's last-ditch push for diplomacy with Tehran ended with American bombers striking Iranian nuclear sites. It speaks to wider anxiety over Europe's geopolitical future as drones and missiles continue to pound Ukraine, tensions rise in the Taiwan strait and the Middle East erupts. Yes, the combination of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has finally stung the European Union out of complacency, with the prospect of rearmament projects worth €800 billion ($920 billion) sending share prices soaring and industrial capacity whirring into life. German weapons maker Rheinmetall AG, for example, is outperforming tech darling Nvidia Corp. and taking Gucci parent Kering SA's place on the Euro Stoxx 50 index. Yet at the same time, we're a long way from a European defense worthy of the name.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iran's foreign minister brands Donald Trump a 'lawless bully' as Keir Starmer holds Cobra meeting
Iran's foreign minister has slammed Donald Trump as a 'lawless bully' after the United States launched strikes on the state's nuclear facilities. Three sites were attacked in Iran overnight, which President Trump claimed had been 'completely and fully obliterated'. It followed days of speculation over whether the US would take action amid an escalating situation between Israel and Iran. READ MORE: Donald Trump confirms US airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities READ MORE: Jet2 issues travel warning to UK tourists flying to popular European holiday destination In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer is due to chair a Cobra meeting on Sunday afternoon following the US strikes. The government has said the UK had no involvement in last night's strikes, but was aware of Mr Trump's decision. Speaking at a press conference this morning (June 22), Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi described the Trump administration as 'warmongering', while he warned that diplomacy was not currently possible. "Silence in the face of such blatant aggression will plunge the world into an unprecedented level of danger and chaos," he said. "Humanity has come too far as a species to allow a lawless bully to take us back to the law of the jungle." The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped. Mr Araghchi insisted that while the 'door to diplomacy' should always be open, 'this is not the case right now'. He added: "The warmongering, lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far reaching implications of its act of aggression." Mr Araghchi said 'there is no red line' that the US has not crossed, adding: "The most dangerous one was what happened only last night when they crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities only." Satellite images taken on Sunday show damage to the mountainside at the underground site at Fordo. The images, by Planet Labs PBC, show the once-brown mountain now has parts turned grey and its contours appear slightly different than in previous images, suggesting a blast threw up debris around the site. That suggests the use of specialised American bunker-buster bombs on the facility. Light grey smoke also hung in the air. Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. Join the Manchester Evening News WhatsApp group HERE It is not clear whether the US will continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a nine-day war with Iran. Mr Trump acted without congressional authorisation, and he warned there will be additional strikes if Tehran retaliates against US forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer said: "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. "The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis."