Trump Enters US Into Another War With Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites

Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities marks a dramatic turning point - not only for the Middle East but for the global order, the presidency, and the long-standing shadow conflict between Washington and Tehran.

On a tense June night in 2025, U.S. B-2 bombers struck three of Iran’s key nuclear sites - Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan - in what the president described as a mission to “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Whether that mission succeeded remains unclear. What’s certain is that Trump has set into motion a high-stakes gamble that could reshape the region or plunge it into wider war.

Speaking from the White House, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump issued a stark ultimatum to Tehran: make peace or face “far greater” attacks. “There are many targets left,” he warned. “Tonight was the most difficult by far, and perhaps the most lethal.”

US hit three nuclear sites in Iran—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. "All aircraft are now out of Iranian airspace. Dropped a full bomb load on Fordow," Trump said. pic.twitter.com/MBmo96I70Q

— WarTranslated (@wartranslated) June 22, 2025

The president did not wait for Congress. Nor did he consult close allies or offer public evidence of his claim that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. Instead, he acted unilaterally and swiftly, launching the strikes just two days after initially saying he would deliberate for two weeks. The result: a display of American military force that rivals some of the boldest foreign policy decisions in decades - and the beginning of a dangerous new chapter.

What happens next depends on how Iran responds. Tehran has already reacted with fury. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared, “War starts right now,” framing the U.S. action as a direct act of war. Iran had long warned that any American involvement in Israel’s campaign would provoke retaliation. Now, with the U.S. directly responsible for strikes on nuclear infrastructure, the question is whether Iran will hit back - and how hard.

Despite days of Israeli attacks degrading Iranian defenses, Tehran still retains options. It could close the Strait of Hormuz, threaten global oil supply, target U.S. forces or bases across the region, or activate proxy groups in Iraq and Syria. Any such action could spiral into a broader war, drawing Washington into a prolonged conflict in a region it has long sought to pivot away from.

The American air campaign relied heavily on stealth bombers and so-called bunker buster bombs - enormous munitions capable of penetrating reinforced underground facilities. While Trump confirmed B-2 bombers were used, he did not specify the type of bombs deployed. Experts suggest these may have been 15,000-kilogram bombs designed to drill through up to 60 meters of rock and concrete. However, Iran’s Fordow site, deeply buried and fortified, may lie even deeper, meaning total destruction remains uncertain.

In political terms, the strike is a resounding win for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has pushed for the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program for years. Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iran last week - aimed at dismantling air defenses - paved the way for Trump’s operation. Lacking the capacity to hit deeply buried facilities on its own, Israel appears to have drawn the U.S. into a war it could not finish alone.

At home, Trump’s move has triggered a fierce political backlash. Republican leaders, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senator Lindsey Graham, rallied behind the president, praising his decisive action and America’s military might. “We have the best Air Force in the world,” Graham said. “Well done, Mr. President.”

Democrats, however, were quick to condemn the strike as unconstitutional and reckless. Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Mark Warner criticized Trump for bypassing Congress, ignoring intelligence assessments, and launching a war without explaining the stakes to the American people. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused Trump of misleading the nation and escalating tensions unnecessarily. “He promised peace in the Middle East,” Jeffries said. “Instead, he has increased the risk of war.”

The implications for international law and precedent are also profound. Trump’s unilateral strike - lacking congressional approval or international backing - raises concerns about the erosion of global norms. Critics warn that such actions could embolden authoritarian leaders elsewhere to justify aggressive military action against smaller nations under the guise of security.

Trump’s approach has also divided his own political base. His America First rhetoric, which emphasized ending “endless wars,” has long resonated with the MAGA movement. But now, he finds himself leading the country into a new Middle East conflict - launched on the very logic of preemptive strikes and questionable intelligence that he once denounced.

For Trump, the decision comes with both political peril and potential legacy-making opportunity. If the strikes permanently cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he could claim a historic victory. If they trigger prolonged war, chaos, or retaliation against U.S. forces and civilians, the consequences could be catastrophic - both for his presidency and for the region.

Meanwhile, questions about Iran’s domestic response loom large. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, humiliated over what Iran views as its sovereign right to enrich uranium, may feel compelled to respond forcefully to preserve regime credibility. Yet a disproportionate response risks bringing further devastation. There is also speculation that the internal pressure could destabilize the regime - a possibility that Israel quietly hopes for, but that could result in unpredictable and dangerous outcomes, including civil war or a power grab by Iran’s hardline military factions.

And so, the U.S. finds itself once again at the center of a volatile Middle East. The airstrikes mark the most aggressive military action since the early days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - both of which began with confidence and ended with long, painful costs. Unlike then, today’s geopolitical landscape is even more complex, with new powers rising and the U.S. eager to reorient its focus toward Asia.