Carlos Barria/Pool via AP
President Donald Trump speaks from the East Room of the White House in Washington, June 21, 2025, after the U.S. military struck three Iranian nuclear and military sites, as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth listen.
Once again, Benjamin Netanyahu has manipulated a U.S. president into not just accepting his military decisions, but following his lead. When it came to Israel’s brutal annihilation of Gaza, Joe Biden went along passively. But Israeli attacks and assassinations in Iran produced in Trump nothing so much as envy. Trump signed on with relish. And just as Israel’s bombing of nuclear sites in Iran proved a distraction from Bibi’s political woes and raised his popularity, American military action might do the same for Trump.
It’s now clear that Trump and Netanyahu, despite deceptions signaling a U.S. preference for diplomacy, were in cahoots all along. The first deception was a planned negotiating session between the Iranians and Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff, scheduled for Sunday, June 15. The Iranians reasonably assumed that, with negotiations pending, no Israeli attack was imminent. Netanyahu then launched his attack early Friday.
The second deception was Trump’s announced two-week pause to see if diplomacy could work. This of course was cover for the “bunker buster” attacks that Trump had already set in motion. All we have is Trump’s word that this was successful, though the lack of radiation leakage could mean that Iran’s enriched uranium was moved prior to the attack.
Partly to reassure the isolationist wing of MAGA and partly to deceive the Iranians yet again, Trump is describing the weekend attacks as a one-off and inviting Iran to trust diplomacy yet again. They would be fools to do so, but what choice do they have?
One option for Iran is to attack U.S. military bases in the region. That would bring even more U.S. retribution, and it’s not clear how much capacity Iran has left.
Another option is to turn to the Russians for help. Vladimir Putin has been very quiet about the Israeli and U.S. raids. Some have assumed a tacit understanding between Trump and Putin that Putin stays out of Iran in exchange for Trump giving the Russians a freer hand in Ukraine, another case of backwards Trump priorities.
But that premise was naïve. Putin is unlikely to passively accept this kind of shift in the regional balance of power. Indeed, today brought news that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi plans to meet with Putin at the Kremlin. And yesterday, Dmitry Medvedev, a top Putin ally, wrote in a post on Telegram, “The enrichment of nuclear material—and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons—will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.”
Let’s sum up the possible risks and benefits in this situation. The risks include a wider war; a more direct confrontation between the U.S. and Russia; economic disruptions if Iran follows through on its parliament’s vote to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes; greater loss of life and economic damage in Israel; and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei being potentially displaced by even more militant and belligerent leadership.
And even if the nuclear program was severely damaged, Iran’s presence in a dangerous region virtually requires some deterrence capability. The attack could accelerate, not forestall, Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
But those of us who abhor these attacks should also consider the possibility that they just might succeed. Surely Iran was not pursuing nuclear capacity mainly for civilian purposes; Iran was pursuing a nuclear deterrent. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded as much in its latest report of May 31. And while others in the administration have walked back Trump’s claim that the attacks wiped out Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, they certainly set it back.
Having stumbled from mishap to mishap in his domestic policies, Trump believes that he has achieved a triumph that has long eluded him. And Trump is never more dangerous than when he thinks he is prevailing.
If Trump can restrain himself from more military adventures and genuinely treat the bombings as a one-off, and if Netanyahu can resist the temptation to further obliterate Iran—two very big ifs—it’s possible that the U.S., Israel, Iran, and Russia will settle into yet another phase of an armed truce. And both Netanyahu and Trump can claim vindication.
That could be the biggest risk of all.
