Trump just put US at the wrong of Iran-Israel conflict
Donald Trump, who returned to the White House in January with promises of being a “peacemaker,” has now taken a bold step by involving the US in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel.
Instead of delivering peace in the Middle East, Trump is now leading the US into a region teetering on the edge of deeper warfare—one in which America is now an active player.
In a televised speech from the White House—just two hours after announcing on social media that US forces had struck three nuclear sites in Iran—Trump described the mission as a “spectacular success.”
He said the attack could open the way to a more lasting peace, where Iran would no longer be capable of becoming a nuclear power.
Iran, however, claimed only minor damage was caused at the heavily fortified Fordo nuclear site. The truth may emerge in time.
With Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth at his side, Trump issued a warning to Iran. If it continued its nuclear programme, he said, it would face even more severe attacks that would be “far worse and a lot easier.”
He added there were still “many targets left” and the US would pursue them with “speed, precision and skill.”
Yet despite the confident tone, continued US military involvement in Iran could spell major trouble for America and the wider world.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned the US escalation could trigger a “spiral of chaos,” especially at a time when the Middle East is already “on edge.”
If Iran retaliates—as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned it would—the US may feel compelled to respond again.
Earlier this week, Trump had given Iran a two-week ultimatum. That deadline was unexpectedly shortened—down to two days. On Saturday night, he declared action had already been taken.
It’s unclear whether the two-week window was a bluff or if backdoor negotiations led by Trump’s peace envoy Steve Witkoff had simply failed.
In the aftermath of the strikes, details remain unclear. Trump, however, used his address and social media post to suggest peace was still possible.
But that may be overly optimistic. While Israeli strikes have already weakened Iran’s military assets, the country still has firepower.
Now, all eyes are on Iran’s response to the strikes on its sites, especially Fordo, a key part of its nuclear programme.
Trump may be hoping that the attacks will push Iran to agree to new terms, but it seems doubtful that a country unwilling to negotiate under Israeli fire would be more open under US bombardment.
Trump also seemed to suggest this was a one-time strike. If not, there could be pressure for further action—or criticism that the mission achieved little while taking a major political gamble.
Beyond global security concerns, the move could create political problems for Trump at home.
Even before the attack, critics from both the Democratic Party and Trump’s own “America First” movement had voiced concerns.
Trump’s choice to appear alongside Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth might have been a strategic move to present a united front within his camp.
Vance, a prominent voice for a restrained foreign policy, had recently argued that Trump still represented non-interventionism and deserved trust from supporters.
If the military action remains limited, Trump might maintain support within his base. But if the US becomes further entangled in conflict, it could spark unrest within his own party.
Saturday’s strike marks a sharp shift for a president who once took pride in not starting new wars during his first term and who criticised past leaders for dragging the US into global conflicts.
Trump has acted—but what comes next may no longer be up to him.