Strikes on Iran mark Trump’s riskiest foreign policy gamble

#Strikes #Iran #mark #Trumps #riskiest #foreign #policy #gamble

With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear locations, US President Donald Trump has done something that he has long vowed to avoid it – a military war in a major foreign war.

The dramatic US strike, which includes deep -term targeting Iran’s most solid nuclear installation, is full of Trump’s biggest foreign policy gambling and a threat and unknown people.

Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran would now have to reconcile or face further attacks, could enhance Tehran by closing the Strait of Harmos, which, the world’s most important oil artery, attacked US military bases in the Middle East, and attacks on its forces.

Such actions could increase in a wider, longer conflict than Trump’s concept, which gave rise to the echo of “wars forever” in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he made as a “stupid” and promised that it would never be dragged.

“The Iranians have been seriously weakened and notorious for their military capabilities,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator, a Democratic and Republican administration. “But they have all kinds of proportional ways they can answer … it’s not going to end quickly.”

On Saturday, the bombing that he announced on Saturday, Trump had evacuated the threats of military action and renewed negotiations to persuade Iran to reach the agreement to end its nuclear program.

A senior White House official said that once Trump became convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching the nuclear deal, he decided that the strikes were “the right thing”.

The official said that once Trump was assured of “high potential for success”, his commitment reached more than a week of Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, a commitment paved the way for the United States to bring the crown to the United States.

Nuclear threat remains

Trump emphasized the “great success” of strikes, which he said, adding that the use of a large -scale “bunker buster bomb” on the main site in Fordo. But some experts suggested that although Iran’s nuclear program has gone back for many years, the threat could be far away.

Iran refused to search for nuclear weapons, saying its program was purely pission for peaceful purposes.

“In the long term, military action is likely to put Iran pressure to determine nuclear weapons that are necessary for instability and is not interested in Washington diplomacy,” an unprecedented weapons -controlled organization, which supports a weapons -controlled law, said.

The group said, “Only military strikes cannot eliminate Iran’s vast nuclear knowledge. The strikes will resume Iran’s program, but at the expense of strengthening Tehran’s commitment to restructure its sensitive nuclear activities.”

Assistant Professor Eric LoB in the field of politics and international relations at Florida International University said Iran’s next move was an open question and suggested that one of its retaliation could target the “soft targets” of the United States and Israel inside and outside the region.

But he also said that there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table-“Although they would do so in a weak position”-Seek the diplomatic off ramp.

Immediately after the US attacks, however, Iran showed little hunger for privileges.

Iran’s nuclear power organization said it would not allow the development of its “national industry”, and an Iranian state -owned television observer said that every US citizen or military member would now have legitimate goals in the region.

In early Sunday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement in which Tehran “considers its right to resist US military aggression with full force.”

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Analyst Karim Sadjdpur posted on X: “Trump indicated that it is now a time of peace. It is unclear and it is unlikely that the Iranians will see it like this. Instead of drawing a result, the 46-year-old American-Iran war is more likely to open a new chapter.”

‘Government change’

Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration had previously rejected any purpose to abolish the Iranian leadership, could be attracted to “change of government” if Tehran made a huge payment or action to make nuclear weapons.

As a result, they will bring additional risks.

“The mission is to ring,” said Middle East analyst Laura Blumman Field, a Middle East analyst for Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. “You will find bones of many failed American moral missions buried in the sands of the Middle East.”

Former Middle East deputy intelligence officer Jonathan Panikov said that if its survival was affected, the Iranian leadership would immediately engage in “proportional attacks”.

He said, but Tehran also has to keep the results in mind. Although measures such as shutting down the Strait Harmos will create problems for Trump as a result of the potential effects of oil prices and US inflation, it will also harm China, one of Iran’s some powerful allies.

At the same time, Trump is already facing a strong push by the Congress Democrats against the Iranian invasion and will have to counter his opposition to his Republican Mega -based interviewist wing.

Trump, who did not face any major international crisis in his first term, is now second in six months.

Even if he hopes that US military inclusion can be limited to time and scope, such a history of such conflicts often gives unannounced results for US presidents.

Trump’s “peace through peace” was definitely never before, especially after opening a new military front after failing to fulfill his election campaign promises to quickly end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

“Trump has returned to the war business,” said Richard Guan, UN director of the International Crisis Group. “I am not convinced that anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing believed in his splee that he was a peace maker. It always looked like a strategy than the election campaign phrase.”