Donald Trump’s decision to launch a bombing campaign against three nuclear sites in Iran comes at a time when individuals within his inner circle, who had previously opposed US involvement in the conflict, have shifted their stance in favor of a limited strike.
The US President had faced significant pressure from Republican anti-interventionists who were concerned that any engagement with Iran might lead to a prolonged conflict aimed at toppling the country’s leadership or result in strikes with limited success.
Several advisers, both inside and outside the White House, had initially attempted to convince Trump not to become entangled in a conflict they characterized as being started by Israel. They proposed that the US continue to support Israel with intelligence community assistance.
However, in recent days, as Trump’s considerations of strikes grew stronger and he expressed no interest in a prolonged war to bring about regime change, some advisers changed their public stance to suggest the US could carry out a swift bombing run if Israel was unable to take further action.
These evolving views provided Trump with some cover to order the bombing campaign targeting the three nuclear facilities in Iran. US officials confirmed on Saturday that the strikes were over, B-2 bombers used in the raid had exited Iranian airspace, and no follow-up attacks were planned.
However, the strikes will likely be seen as a victory for hardliners in the US who have advocated for a tough stance on Iran, supported Israel’s attack on the country, and called for direct US military involvement.
The strikes were primarily focused on Iran’s nuclear uranium-enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, as well as a third site at Isfahan where Iran was believed to have stored its near-weapons-grade uranium. It is uncertain whether the bombing campaign inflicted enough damage to hinder Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon or if Iran had already moved the weapons-grade uranium out of the Isfahan laboratory, as some officials suggested.
Trump appeared to view the bombing run as comparable to his previous operation to assassinate Gen Qassem Suleimani of Iran, a moment of pride from his first term. He posted a graphic of the American flag on his Truth Social account shortly after describing the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities as “very successful.”
This comparison seemed to emphasize Trump’s intention to avoid a wider war with Iran and focus solely on preventing the country’s development of a nuclear weapon. The outcome will largely depend on how Iran interprets the strikes and its capacity to retaliate. If the strikes are perceived as limited, Iran may respond in a more measured manner. However, if they are seen as disproportionate, Iran could launch frontal attacks on multiple US bases in the region.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/21/trump-iran-attack-analysis
