Trump’s Iran gamble fraught with risk

Donald Trump, the president who returned to the White House in January, promising to be a “peaceful”, has taken a dramatic stage to insert the United States into the difficult conflict between Iran and Israel.

Far from bringing peace to the Middle East since his entry into office, Trump now presides over a region on the precipice of an even greater war – a fight in which America is an active participant.

In a television address at the White House nation just over two hours after announced on social networks that the American forces had struck three nuclear sites in Iran, the American president said that the operation had been a “spectacular success”.

He expressed the hope that his move will open the door to a more sustainable peace where Iran no longer had the potential to become a nuclear power.

Iran said there were only minor damage to its highly fortified nuclear site. Time will tell us which side is correct.

Flanked by Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump warned Iran that if they did not give up their nuclear program, they would face future attacks which were “very worse and much easier”.

There were “many targets,” said Trump, and the United States would pursue them with “speed, precision and skills”.

Despite the president’s bravado, a continuous American military engagement in Iran can be the worst case for the United States, the region and the world.

The UN Secretary General, António Guterres, warned against a “chaos spiral” which could result from the American decision to degenerate the conflict, noting that the Middle East was already “on board”.

If Iran Riposte – like Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, had warned him, he would occur in the event of an American attack – then the American side may feel obliged to answer.

Trump’s rhetoric earlier this week that Iran had to “go unconditionally” had put the president in a position where it would be difficult for him to retreat. Iran, with its own threats, fell back in a similar corner.

This is how wars begin – and how they can extend beyond the control and imagination of the people involved.

Donald Trump gave the Iranians a deadline for two weeks on Thursday, but it turned out to be much shorter than expected – only two days. On Saturday evening, the American president announced that he had acted.

Were the two weeks for negotiations a feint? An attempt to attract Iranians to a false feeling of security this weekend? Or did he make behind-the-scenes negotiations by the Pacifier designated by Trump, Steve Witkoff, collapsing?

In the aftermath of strikes, we know little. But in his article on social networks and in his television address, Trump tried to open the door to peace.

This can however be an optimistic perspective. While the Israelis have made considerable efforts to degrade the military capacities of Iran, Ayatollah still has weapons at its disposal.

Things could get messy quickly.

Now the waiting game begins. How will Iran react to attacks on three of its sites, including Fordo, considered the jewel of the crown of its nuclear program?

Trump seems to hope that the United States will force Iran to make greater concessions to the negotiation table, but it seems unlikely that a nation did not want to speak under the Israeli attack will be more inclined when the American bombs also fall.

And while Trump seemed to imply that the American attack was a unique and successful event, if not, then strike pressure again – or if the president will have taken a serious political risk of minimal military gain.

This risk includes internal political concerns, as well as international security issues.

The prospect of an American attack on Iran had already caused strong criticism from the Democrats, but also from the interior of Trump’s “America First” movement.

The president’s unusual decision to give his national speech flanked by three of his closer advisers can be an attempt to project unity into his party.

Vance, in particular, was an ardent defender of a more sober American foreign policy and, recently, had brought social media to plead that Trump is still a non-interventionist who should be beneficiary of his supporters.

If this attack is a unique event, Trump could be able to smooth the divisions of his base. But if it pulls the United States in a broader conflict, the president could have an uprising with his ranks.

The attack on Saturday was an aggressive decision for a president who boasted of starting any new war during his first presidential mandate and who regularly kept against predecessors who had led the country in foreign conflicts on the campaign of the campaign last year.

Trump made his movement. Where he goes from here is not entirely under his control.