Washington: U.S. President Donald Trump has taken one of the boldest and most controversial steps of his political career by authorizing direct airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites actions that analysts and global leaders are calling his riskiest foreign policy move yet. The strikes represent a dramatic escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran and align the United States more closely than ever with Israel’s ongoing military campaign against Iran.
Once known for championing an “America First” strategy and avoiding entanglement in foreign wars, Trump’s decision signifies a pivot toward interventionist policy. His administration has justified the strikes as a necessary response to the growing threat posed by Iran’s nuclear development. According to U.S. officials, Israel’s prior bombardment of key Iranian facilities had already weakened Tehran’s defenses, paving the way for targeted American airstrikes with a "high probability of success."
Trump's supporters within the Republican establishment have praised the decision as strong and decisive. However, many within his own political base particularly those drawn to his anti-war rhetoric have expressed disappointment, viewing the move as a betrayal of his previous promises to avoid foreign conflicts.
The Iranian government has reacted with fury. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi condemned the U.S. airstrikes as “an act of naked aggression” and warned that Iran “reserves all options” in response. There are growing fears that Tehran may retaliate through asymmetric means, such as disrupting oil shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, launching missile attacks against U.S. bases in the Gulf, or utilizing its network of regional proxy forces to destabilize American allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
With Iran’s warning of a potentially “devastating” response, the region is bracing for further escalation. Intelligence sources have noted increased mobilization of Iran-backed militias in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, fueling concerns that the conflict could expand into a full-scale regional war.
World leaders have largely condemned the U.S. strikes, warning that the move risks igniting a prolonged conflict that could engulf the Middle East. European diplomats have called for immediate de-escalation and urged both Iran and the United States to return to negotiations. French President Emmanuel Macron, who had recently spoken to President Trump and Iranian President Masoud Peseshkian, expressed grave concern over the unfolding situation and reiterated that diplomacy is the only sustainable solution.
The economic repercussions have been swift. Oil prices surged overnight amid fears of supply disruptions in the Gulf. Several major international airlines announced rerouting of flights to avoid Iranian airspace, and cryptocurrency markets experienced a sharp dip, reflecting broader uncertainty in global financial markets.
Strategically, Trump’s action is seen as a double-edged sword. While it may increase pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions, it also runs the risk of backfiring drawing the U.S. into another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict with unpredictable consequences. Critics have drawn parallels to previous U.S. military entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, warning that the cost of such a move could be high both in lives and in long-term stability.
Yet within Trump’s inner circle, the gamble is seen as a calculated one. Senior advisers argue that only by showing military resolve can the U.S. force Iran back to the negotiating table. They believe the boldness of this move, coupled with international pressure, could eventually lead to a new, more enforceable nuclear deal.
President Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites marks a watershed moment in U.S. foreign policy one filled with uncertainty, risk, and immense global ramifications. Whether it succeeds in deterring Iran or plunges the region into deeper chaos remains to be seen. For now, the world watches anxiously as two historic adversaries stand on the brink of a new and dangerous chapter.