WASHINGTON D.C., United States — Donald Trump, who returned to the White House in January with a self-proclaimed mission to be a “peacemaker,” has taken a significant and dramatic step, actively inserting the United States into the volatile conflict between Iran and Israel.
Far from fostering tranquility in the Middle East since resuming office, President Trump now presides over a region teetering on the brink of intensified warfare, a confrontation in which America is now a direct participant.
In a televised address to the nation from the White House, delivered just over two hours after announcing on social media that American forces had launched strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, the American president declared the operation a “spectacular success.”
He expressed optimism that this assertive move would pave the way for a more enduring peace, ultimately preventing Iran from attaining nuclear power capabilities.
Iran, however, has countered the claim, stating that its heavily fortified Fordo nuclear site sustained only minor damage, leaving the veracity of the assertions to be determined by time.
Flanked by Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, President Trump issued a stark warning to Tehran: if they do not abandon their nuclear program, they would face future attacks that were “far worse and a lot easier.” He further asserted that there were “many targets left,” and the US would pursue them with “speed, precision and skill.”
Despite the president’s defiant posture, sustained American military engagement in Iran presents a worst-case scenario for the US, the region, and the global community.
UN Secretary General António Guterres cautioned against a “spiral of chaos” that could result from the American decision to escalate the conflict, highlighting the Middle East’s already precarious state.
The prospect of Iranian retaliation, a response that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had previously warned would occur in the event of a US attack, could compel the American side to respond further, creating a dangerous cycle. This follows Trump’s rhetoric earlier in the week, demanding that Iran “unconditionally surrender,” which had positioned the president with little room to de-escalate.
Iran, through its own counter-threats, found itself in a similarly intractable position. Such dynamics, the article notes, often mark the genesis of wars and their potential expansion beyond the control or even the initial comprehension of those involved.
The president’s initial “two-week” deadline given to Iran on Thursday proved far shorter than anticipated, collapsing into just two days before Saturday night’s announced strike. Whether this “two weeks” was a feint, an attempt to lull Iranians into a false sense of security over the weekend, or if behind-the-scenes negotiations led by Trump’s designated peacemaker Steve Witkoff genuinely collapsed, remains largely unknown in the immediate aftermath of the strikes. Nonetheless, both in his social media post and televised address, Trump attempted to “open the door for peace.”
However, this outlook may prove overly optimistic. While Israeli efforts have significantly aimed at degrading Iran’s military capabilities, the Ayatollah retains substantial weaponry. The situation, therefore, holds the potential to rapidly devolve into greater instability.
Now, a tense waiting game commences, centered on how Iran will react to attacks on three of its sites, including Fordo, widely regarded as the cornerstone of its nuclear program.
Trump appears to be banking on the US strikes forcing Iran to make greater concessions at the negotiating table. Yet, it seems improbable that a nation unwilling to engage in talks while under Israeli assault would be more amenable when confronted by American bombardment.
Furthermore, while Trump seemed to imply the US attack was a singular, decisive event, if the outcome is not as definitive as portrayed, the pressure to strike again will intensify, or the president risks having taken a considerable political gamble for minimal military gain.
Also Read: Kenya announces urgent evacuation of citizens from Israel and Iran
This risk extends beyond international security to include significant domestic political concerns. The mere prospect of a US attack on Iran had already drawn sharp criticisms not only from Democrats but also from within Trump’s own “America First” movement.
The president’s uncommon decision to deliver his national address flanked by three of his closest advisors may have been an attempt to project unity within his political party.
Notably, Vice-President Vance has been a vocal proponent of a more restrained American foreign policy and recently used social media to argue that Trump remains a non-interventionist deserving of his supporters’ trust.
If Saturday’s attack proves to be an isolated incident, Trump might be able to mend the divisions within his base. However, if it draws the United States into a broader conflict, the president could face a significant uprising from within his own ranks.
Saturday’s strike represents an aggressive departure for a president who consistently highlighted starting no new wars during his first term and frequently criticized predecessors for entangling the nation in foreign conflicts during last year’s campaign trail.
Trump has made his move; where the situation proceeds from here, however, is not entirely within his control.
