Flash News

The US is involved in the war, why did Trump take the risk of attacking Iran?

Bosnian tourist drowns in Durres

Massive accident on the Librazhd-Qukas axis, 3 injured, one in critical condition

An apartment in Yzberisht is engulfed in flames

Robbed a jeweler in Gjirokastra in 2021, 45-year-old extradited from Greece (NAME)

Bota

The US is involved in the war, why did Trump take the risk of attacking Iran?

Politiko 2025-06-22 20:28:22

From sanctions to sabotage and cyberattacks to diplomacy, the United States has used every weapon it can for 20 years to slow Iran's long march toward nuclear weapons. On Sunday morning, President Donald Trump turned to the ultimate weapon, the brute military force that his four predecessors had deliberately avoided, fearing it would plunge the United States into war in the Middle East.

For Trump, the decision to attack an enemy country's nuclear infrastructure represents the biggest and perhaps most dangerous risk of his second term, the New York Times said in an analysis. The US president is betting that the United States can repel any retaliation ordered by the Iranian leadership against the more than 40,000 US soldiers spread across bases across the region.

All are within range of Tehran's missile arsenal, even after eight days of relentless Israeli attacks. He is also betting that he can prevent a much-weakened Iran from using its familiar techniques of terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks as a more indirect form of attack to retaliate.

More importantly, the US newspaper's analysis continues, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of rebuilding its nuclear program in the future. This is an ambitious goal, as Iran has made it clear that, if attacked, it will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and move its extensive program into secrecy.

That’s why Trump paid so much attention to the destruction of Fordow, where Iran produced almost all of the war-grade fuel that most concerned the United States and its allies. The president’s aides may have talked about the complexity of the operation, but they stressed, even to their European partners, that this is not a declaration of war.

The White House is talking about preventive action aimed at neutralizing a threat, not the Iranian regime, but the Iranians will not perceive it in the same way. In fact, they are talking about the Middle Eastern bully who must now accept peace, otherwise there will be a tragedy in Iran far greater than what we have seen in the last eight days.

Essentially, Trump was threatening to expand his military cooperation with Israel. Initially, the United States distanced itself from the operation, but Trump quickly changed course and referred to the United States' ability to assassinate Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whenever it wanted.

The time is favorable.

After October 7, 2023, Iran was suddenly deprived of its “proxies,” Hamas and Hezbollah, its closest ally, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, was forced out of the country, and Russia and China, which had formed an alliance of interests with Iran, did not appear after the Israeli attack. Thus, the New York Times continues, the nuclear program remained Iran’s only defense, the ultimate means of defense for the heirs of the Iranian Revolution that began in 1979.

Future historians will likely wonder whether the United States, its allies, or the Iranians themselves could have acted differently—and whether Trump’s threat succeeded. If Iran fails to respond, if the ayatollah’s authority weakens, or if the country abandons its earlier nuclear ambitions, Trump will no doubt claim that he alone was willing to use American military power to achieve a goal that his four predecessors considered too dangerous.

But there is another possibility. Iran could recover slowly, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their knowledge into secrecy, and the country could follow the path opened by North Korea in a race to build a nuclear bomb. Iran might conclude that this is the only way to keep major hostile powers at bay and prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one at dawn Sunday./ New York Times