By ordering airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, President Donald Trump did what he had long claimed he wanted to avoid: he intervened directly in a major foreign policy conflict. The strikes on underground sites, including a fortified complex in Fordow, marked the most significant military action of Trump’s two terms—and one fraught with serious risks.
The day after the strikes, Trump declared that Iran should "make peace immediately, or face further attacks." Yet analysts warn that Tehran’s response could include closing the Strait of Hormuz—a critical artery for global oil trade—attacks on U.S. bases and allies across the Middle East, large-scale missile strikes on Israel, and the activation of proxy groups around the world.
Спутниковый снимок показывает повреждения на объекте по обогащению урана в Фордо в Иране после ударов США. 22 июня 2025 года.
Such escalation could draw the United States into a far more prolonged conflict than anticipated—reminiscent of the "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Trump repeatedly criticized.
"Iran’s military capabilities have been seriously weakened, but it still has asymmetric ways of responding," said Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Middle East peace negotiator. "This won’t end quickly."
Until the last moment, Trump vacillated between threats and attempts to restart negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. According to a senior White House official, the president gave the green light for the strikes once he became convinced that Tehran had no intention of making a deal. The U.S. airstrikes came after more than a week of Israeli attacks on Iranian sites, which the White House believed had created "a high probability of success."
Trump hailed the strikes as "a major success," emphasizing the use of "bunker-busting bombs" against Fordow. But experts caution that while the Iranian program may have been set back by years, the threat has not disappeared. Iranian authorities continue to insist their program is purely peaceful.
The Arms Control Association stated that military intervention could in fact strengthen Iran’s resolve to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. "A single military strike cannot erase nuclear knowledge. The program will be rebuilt, even if not immediately," the statement read.
Генерал Дэн Кейн, председатель Объединенного комитета начальников штабов, воздержался от формулировок Дональда Трампа, который заявил, что объекты были «полностью и окончательно уничтожены».
Eric Lob, a scholar at the University of Florida, believes Tehran may eventually return to diplomacy—but from a much weaker position. In the near term, however, Iran shows little sign of compromise. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has declared it will not allow the shutdown of its "national industry," while the country’s main state broadcaster announced that "every American or military figure in the region is now a legitimate target."
In an official statement, Iran’s foreign ministry emphasized that the country reserves the right to "resist American military aggression by any means necessary."
Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment described the moment as "the opening of a new chapter in a 46-year war between the U.S. and Iran." He noted that while Trump spoke of peace, it is unlikely Tehran views this as an invitation to negotiate.
Some analysts warn that if Iran launches a large-scale retaliation or moves closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, the U.S. could once again drift toward regime change—despite official denials. But that path carries even greater risks. "Beware of sliding into regime change and democracy-promotion missions," cautioned Laura Blumenfeld of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "America’s moral crusades in the Middle East have failed before."
Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. intelligence deputy for the Middle East, believes that if Iran’s survival is threatened, it may resort to "disproportionate" attacks. Even so, Tehran would have to weigh the consequences: closing the Strait of Hormuz would hurt not only the U.S. but also China—one of Iran’s few influential allies.
At the same time, Trump’s decision has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and sparked concern among some of his own MAGA-aligned supporters, who oppose foreign military entanglements.
During his first term, Trump largely avoided major international crises. Now, just six months into his return to the White House, he finds himself at the center of one. Even if U.S. involvement is limited in duration and scale, the history of such operations suggests that consequences are often unpredictable.
The campaign slogan "peace through strength," which became a hallmark of Trump’s rhetoric, now faces a serious test—especially given that the president has opened a third military front without fulfilling his pledge to quickly end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
"Trump is back to waging wars," concluded Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group. "In Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing, few ever believed he was a peacemaker. It always sounded more like a campaign line than a real strategy."
No More Proxies
Fordow Is Iran’s Underground Nuclear Facility, Out of Reach for Israeli Strikes
Here Is What We Know About It
Israel Strikes Iran, Accusing It of Seeking Nuclear Weapons
Yet Israel Itself Has Long Possessed Them—Though Never Officially Admitted
Israel Strikes Iran’s Nuclear Facilities
The Campaign Weakens Tehran but Doesn’t Eliminate the Threat
Netanyahu Ignores Trump’s Warnings and Launches Operation Against Iran
