Donald Trump, the controversial US president, in one of his final displays of power, decided to start direct military confrontation with Iran after the June 13 Israeli attack, despite his initial promises to voters. His aim was to save Netanyahu – and himself – from a predicament caused by miscalculations of Tel Aviv’s capabilities, Iran’s military power, Israeli society’s resilience, and the Iranian people’s steadfastness against foreign aggression. This decision, made under the pretext of threatening Iran’s nuclear program, not only failed to achieve a tactical victory but also opened a front of criticism within the US and weakened Washington’s strategic position in the region. The narrative of total destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, put forth by the Trump administration, was quickly questioned by American politicians, experts, and media, turning public opinion against him.
Big Lies, Leaks, and Challenge to Official Narrative
Following extensive media pressure and even criticism from some Congressional Republicans, Trump admitted that information about the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities had been leaked to the media by Democratic representatives. This revelation not only undermined the credibility of the White House’s crafted narrative but also suggested that the real technical and field data indicated the operation’s failure. In effect, Trump was forced to indirectly acknowledge that the military operation against Iran had not been as effective as promised.
Meanwhile, ambiguities surrounding the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles remain. The US government claims these reserves were buried underground during the attack and rejects the possibility of their transfer elsewhere. However, Iran has offered no explanation on the matter, and Tehran’s silence effectively challenges the American claim. In this atmosphere, uncertainty persists – an atmosphere in which Washington remains without evidence before the media, public opinion, and international bodies.
Suspension of Cooperation with the IAEA and Strategic Ambiguity
One of the most significant consequences of the US military attack was Iran’s complete suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran not only refused inspections of the bombed facilities but also turned off the agency’s surveillance cameras – an event that severely damaged America’s credibility in overseeing Iran’s nuclear activities. Prior to the attack, Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA had been not only active but extensive and transparent, with inspectors having full access to all facilities. Now, not only the US, but Europe and the IAEA as well face a crisis of opacity, the direct result of Trump’s military action.
From a strategic perspective, this shift in Iranian behavior was a calculated and purposeful response: moving beyond the logic of control and oversight into an unpredictable arena where Iran holds the upper hand. In practice, this has led international bodies to back away from further pressure and has deepened confusion among American policymakers.
Iran’s Response: Missile Retaliation and Maintaining Strategic Poise
The turning point of the crisis came when Iran, contrary to Trump’s delusion that it would remain silent or submit after the US military aggression, responded with a direct and meaningful counterattack. Targeting the Al Udeid airbase – the largest US airbase in the region – not only challenged America’s military credibility but also shook the region’s strategic order. This action sent a clear message to Trump and his allies that Iran not only does not fear threats but is also ready to retaliate in the arena of confrontation.
In response, Trump backtracked, despite his previous promise of a harsher counterstrike should Iran retaliate. There was no attack. Instead, in a stark reversal, he thanked Iran and even announced that China could continue buying oil from Iran.
Iran, however, showed no flexibility and proved to America that its actions had made the path to engagement and compromise with Tehran far more difficult and challenging. This clear retreat effectively declared the end of the military phase of confrontation, pushing Trump into a defensive position before American public opinion and his allies.
Israel: Biggest Loser in 12-Day War
Among all the actors in this conflict, Israel was undoubtedly the main loser. Tel Aviv, which in the early weeks tried to expand the battlefield using Trump’s rhetoric, ultimately was forced – through Trump – to seek a ceasefire. What was once considered Israel’s military and intelligence prestige has now faded before global public opinion.
It now appears Israel will try to compensate for its previous failures by pressuring the White House to push Trump into new aggressive actions in hopes of restoring its lost credibility.
Trump now fully realizes there is no guarantee of swift, marketable success through renewed war, and that with escalating crises, the situation could become far more complex and entirely slip from his control.
Trump and Familiar Phase of Retreat Under the Guise of Victory
Trump’s political behavior in such situations is well-known. He retreats from arenas where there is a serious risk of defeat, but by creating a new narrative, tries to present it as a victory. In Yemen, for instance, after failing to force Ansarullah to surrender, he described the negotiation route as a diplomatic triumph.
NOURNEWS