It happened. Despite intense advocacy by voices of restraint inside and outside the administration, President Trump has joined Israel’s conflict with Iran by launching targeted air and cruise-missile strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities — at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The move carries immense risks, potentially plunging the United States into yet another costly, dangerous quagmire in a region that is less important to Washington than foreign-policy elites would have you believe. But guided the right way — and with a bit of luck — it is possible to keep this intervention limited.
One key reason we’re here is the perception of Iranian weakness. Since the start of hostilities between Israel and the Islamic Republic, Trump has wavered between diplomacy and the use of force, searching for the best tactic to block Tehran’s path to nuclear weapons. At the same time, ever attuned to optics, the President prefers to align with winners. And in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s initial military operations — marked by the killing of senior commanders and nuclear scientists, and a highly modulated Iranian retaliation — Israeli dominance and Tehran’s vulnerability became the prevailing narrative in the West.
Often, our first impressions of a conflict go a long way to determine how we approach it over time. For instance, despite Israeli strikes on Iranian missile launchers, Tehran’s offensive military capabilities have remained intact. Over the past week, Iran has struck key strategic targets in Haifa and Tel Aviv using fewer missiles with better (and improving) accuracy. Yet Iran’s tactical focus — coupled with its proportional, calibrated response — actually encouraged public perceptions of Iranian weakness. And in such moments, when the fog of war thickens and facts are murky, perception often becomes reality.
“Trump faces two possible scenarios following the US strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
But aligning a perception with prudent statecraft is the real challenge. A false perception almost always distorts decision-making, leading to bad policy. The better path is to game out potential outcomes in the light of the best available information.
Trump faces two possible scenarios following the US strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The first is the ideal outcome: the B-2 and Tomahawk cruise missiles executed against the three Iranian nuclear facilities significantly checks Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, while opening the door to more robust diplomacy.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic limits or forgoes retaliation — or conducts a tightly choreographed and telegraphed counterattack similar to its response to the assassination of Quds Force commander Gen. Qassem Solemani in January 2020 — in the hope that Washington won’t pursue regime change. According to this scenario, assuming the US doesn’t fall victim to mission creep or becomes locked in an escalation spiral, Trump could claim victory without entangling America in yet another open-ended Middle-East conflict.
As it is, there are early signs that the Iranians are prepared to treat this as a calibrated mutual dance. On Sunday afternoon local time, IRIB 1, state television’s main channel, broadcast footage of captured US sailors from a 2016 incident, as if to give the Islamic Republic and its people psychological succour. Meanwhile, IRINN, the state news network, took a curiously legalistic line, highlighting what the Iranians see as the illicit nature of Trump’s actions under international law, as well as US congressional Democrats’ outrage at the President for circumventing their legislative role.
Still, success depends on precision, discipline, escalation management, and a willingness to take diplomatic off-ramps that may appear unsatisfying at first — traits not often associated with wars that begin amid great fanfare and inflated expectations.
The second and more dangerous scenario is attritional escalation. Even if Trump’s strikes inflict some damage, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure may prove resilient, and the regime’s response — through proxies, missile attacks, or maritime disruption — could spiral into a broader, long-term regional war against the United States.
Unlike other recent adversaries, such as Iraq or Libya, Iran has aggressively prepared for this scenario and adapted its military doctrine based on lessons learned from previous American military operations in the region. And the rally-around-the-flag effect is real, no matter what gleeful regime-changers claim. “Whatever God wants, we are ready,” an old woman told state TV while shopping for groceries the day after the US attacks. “Because we had eight years of war with Iraq, we don’t fear anything.” Anyone who assumes that such sentiments are pure regime propaganda is unfamiliar with Iranian history — recklessly so.
A grinding war would drain American resources, undermine regional stability, and risk turning an operation intended to be a targeted counter-proliferation strike into a failed regime-change war. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan loom large while America’s true global competitor — China — would benefit from America’s continuing distraction in the Middle East.
If Trump’s military operation isn’t tightly defined or properly managed, or if actors in the US government or outside of it are allowed to willfully expand the scope of the operation, the second outcome is the most likely — and the most disastrous.
Trump has shown in the past — whether in assassinating Soleimani or targeting Yemen’s Houthis — that he prefers swift Machiavellian decisiveness over lofty adventurism. If he is to uphold his red line against an Iranian bomb while avoiding another disastrous, endless entanglement abroad, he must be ruthlessly pragmatic in pursuit of realistic and effective diplomatic solutions.
Any military operation against Iran must be firmly centred first and foremost on America’s national interests — above all, the avoidance of yet another protracted war in the Middle East that could claim thousands of American lives, cost billions of dollars, and become a further distraction from more urgent priorities. To preserve American power and secure his legacy, President Trump must reject the temptation of unchecked escalation and maximalist goals masked as victory.
