In his speech following the strike on Iran’s three main nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—President Trump emphasized that “our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat.” He further warned, “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.” He also stressed: “There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.”
It appears that, from the president’s perspective, the targeted strike was intended to swiftly bring the military campaign to an end through a diplomatic agreement, which would require Iran to accept a comprehensive and stringent deal based on the following terms: zero enrichment, complete dismantling of enrichment infrastructure, removal of all enriched materials, and intrusive and extensive supervision. It seems the Trump administration doesn’t intend to continue military strikes at this stage, unless a response is required to Iranian attacks on American targets or forces, and/or on the infrastructure of US allies in the Gulf.
The assessment is that the strike was accompanied by the delivery of diplomatic messages to Iran through multiple channels. These messages underscored, on one hand, a willingness to respond forcefully to any Iranian action against the United States, and on the other hand, a demand that Iran immediately accept the terms of the deal as defined by the Trump administration. Additionally, the administration may be attempting to establish clear red lines concerning Iran’s missile program and regional activities. According to media reports, the messages to Iran also emphasized that the Trump administration doesn’t intend to bring down the regime in Tehran.
Despite the decision to strike the nuclear sites, it’s clear that the United States remains committed to avoiding entanglement in a prolonged war. The dilemma over continued military involvement will intensify if Iran persists in its defiance and fails to comply with the demands, and/or if it turns out that Iran still retains significant nuclear capabilities.
In a scenario where the military campaign ends without a diplomatic agreement, the administration is expected to focus on strict enforcement of sanctions—primarily in the field of Iranian oil exports—and to work closely with Israel to carry out special operations targeting any nuclear capabilities that survived the strikes. In such a scenario, there is a growing likelihood that the United States and Israel will have to contend with a reality in which there is no international supervision within Iran and even face the possibility of Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty).
In his speech following the strike on Iran’s three main nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—President Trump emphasized that “our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat.” He further warned, “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.” He also stressed: “There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.”
It appears that, from the president’s perspective, the targeted strike was intended to swiftly bring the military campaign to an end through a diplomatic agreement, which would require Iran to accept a comprehensive and stringent deal based on the following terms: zero enrichment, complete dismantling of enrichment infrastructure, removal of all enriched materials, and intrusive and extensive supervision. It seems the Trump administration doesn’t intend to continue military strikes at this stage, unless a response is required to Iranian attacks on American targets or forces, and/or on the infrastructure of US allies in the Gulf.
The assessment is that the strike was accompanied by the delivery of diplomatic messages to Iran through multiple channels. These messages underscored, on one hand, a willingness to respond forcefully to any Iranian action against the United States, and on the other hand, a demand that Iran immediately accept the terms of the deal as defined by the Trump administration. Additionally, the administration may be attempting to establish clear red lines concerning Iran’s missile program and regional activities. According to media reports, the messages to Iran also emphasized that the Trump administration doesn’t intend to bring down the regime in Tehran.
Despite the decision to strike the nuclear sites, it’s clear that the United States remains committed to avoiding entanglement in a prolonged war. The dilemma over continued military involvement will intensify if Iran persists in its defiance and fails to comply with the demands, and/or if it turns out that Iran still retains significant nuclear capabilities.
In a scenario where the military campaign ends without a diplomatic agreement, the administration is expected to focus on strict enforcement of sanctions—primarily in the field of Iranian oil exports—and to work closely with Israel to carry out special operations targeting any nuclear capabilities that survived the strikes. In such a scenario, there is a growing likelihood that the United States and Israel will have to contend with a reality in which there is no international supervision within Iran and even face the possibility of Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty).