President Donald Trump's recent military action against Iran stands as the most consequential and dangerous decision of his administration to date—a significant claim given the administration’s already dramatic record in foreign policy. Has the 'Deep State' gotten to him, too?
This decision follows a series of escalations. Trump previously authorized Israel to abandon a ceasefire in Gaza—one he himself helped negotiate—effectively enabling the continued bombardment of the region, funded and armed by the United States. He also reignited the bombing campaign in Yemen against the Houthis, a move President Biden continued in 2024 before Trump once again escalated and then paused it. But none of these compare in historical weight or risk to the latest development: a direct military assault on Iran.
On the night in question, President Trump followed through on a course of action he had been signaling for several days. He ordered a multi-pronged military strike targeting Iran’s three primary nuclear facilities. The operation deployed B-2 bombers, which dropped at least six bunker buster bombs on one site, and Tomahawk missiles launched from submarines against two others. The assault represented a significant violation of Iranian sovereignty, combining air and sea-based military assets in a coordinated attack.
Following the bombardment, Trump declared via Truth Social and in a White House address—flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance, Senator Marco Rubio, and commentator Pete Hegseth—that the mission had "completely obliterated Iran’s nuclear program." He then called for peace, suggesting that the strikes should be seen as a sufficient warning and that hostilities should end.
However, Iran made clear both before and after the strike that it considers retaliation not just inevitable but obligatory. Any nation subjected to such direct military aggression would respond in kind. Iran possesses a range of retaliatory options: American troops remain stationed in Iraq, where much of the Iraqi military is loyal to Tehran, putting U.S. forces at heightened risk. Numerous U.S. military bases in the region, ranging from hardened installations in Qatar to more vulnerable outposts, also face elevated threats.
Iran has proven ballistic missile capabilities, as demonstrated after the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in 2020, when it launched missile strikes on U.S. bases, resulting in casualties. In addition to its own forces, Iran has loyal militias operating across the region and proxies worldwide, all capable of targeting American interests, infrastructure, or civilians at any time—days, weeks, even years from now.
The strategic choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes, is also at risk. Though Iran’s parliament has symbolically voted to close the strait, the final decision lies with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Nevertheless, dismissing Iran’s retaliatory potential is dangerously naive.
This escalation fits into a long and destructive pattern. Every time the United States initiates a military conflict in the Middle East, it sets the stage for inevitable blowback—a term the CIA itself uses. Public discourse often demonizes Iranian slogans like “Death to America” without examining their roots. In 1954, the CIA orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected government, replacing it with the Shah—a brutal dictator who ruled for 26 years with U.S. backing. That legacy continues to fuel deep anti-American sentiment, much as similar interventions across South America have left lasting scars.
These feelings aren’t abstract ideology. They stem from tangible policies: the arming and funding of Israel’s destruction of Gaza, the occupation and bombardment of multiple Muslim-majority countries, and now, direct warfare with Iran.
A record of bombings and overthrows are piling up!
Iran is now the eighth Muslim-majority country bombed by the United States in the last 15 years. The list includes:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Syria
Libya
Somalia
Pakistan
Yemen
And now, Iran
President Obama’s administration bombed all seven of the others in 2016 alone. Trump has now added Iran to the list. This ongoing pattern has contributed to a widespread perception that American military force is disproportionately deployed against Muslim nations.
If Iran retaliates—whether against U.S. troops, infrastructure, or civilian targets—it would be the consequence of over a decade of continual American aggression in the region. To respond with confusion or shock would be to ignore this well-documented history.
Serving Whose Interests?
This new war aligns seamlessly with long-standing Israeli interests. Israel has for decades sought to draw the U.S. into direct conflict with Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly promoted regime change wars across the region—first in Iraq, now in Iran. It was Netanyahu who, in 2002, testified before the U.S. Congress to support invading Iraq, promising it would lead to regional stability and peace. That proved entirely false. Even Tony Blair has acknowledged that deposing Saddam Hussein created the conditions for ISIS to flourish.
While it is Trump’s decision alone to bomb Iran, it is notable that his administration consistently acts in Israel’s interest. Trump has boasted of being the most pro-Israel president in history, proudly claiming he gave Israel even more than they requested. His biggest donor, Miriam Adelson—an Israeli-American—reportedly had more White House access than any other individual, always pushing for Israeli priorities.
This war, like others before it, appears to serve Israeli geopolitical objectives more than U.S. national interests.
The Myth of the Precision Strike
The rhetoric surrounding this attack is already filled with familiar propaganda. One of the most dangerous claims came directly from Trump: that Iran’s nuclear program has been “completely obliterated.” This cannot be verified and may well be false. Some of Iran’s facilities are buried deep underground—possibly beyond the reach of bunker busters. Moreover, the possibility remains that Iran relocated key materials and equipment in anticipation of the strike.
No credible independent verification has confirmed that Iran’s nuclear program was fully destroyed. In wartime, official government statements—especially those lacking evidence—should never be taken at face value.
From MAGA to Militarism
What’s perhaps most striking is the ideological reversal among many Trump supporters. The MAGA movement has long championed an “America First” foreign policy, warning against endless wars and entanglements in the Middle East. Many within that base had vocally opposed intervention in Iran. Yet, following the strike, a majority quickly reversed their stance, parroting White House talking points and praising Trump’s decision.
The transformation was instantaneous and nearly universal, showcasing the power of propaganda and partisan loyalty over principle.
A Protracted War in the Making
If Iran retaliates—and all signs suggest it will—the United States will almost certainly respond in turn. What begins as a “limited strike” can rapidly become a sustained military engagement, drawing the country deeper into yet another protracted Middle East war. The idea that this was a quick, one-night operation is already being exposed as wishful thinking.
Whether the conflict continues will depend in part on how Iran chooses to respond. But the precedent is clear: once the U.S. begins bombing another country—particularly one with regional influence and global allies—the possibility of escalation is not a hypothetical. It’s the default.
Conclusion
At its core, this latest decision represents not just a strategic gamble, but a repeat of past mistakes. It is a continuation of a decades-long pattern of U.S. interventionism, one that has consistently produced instability, resentment, and retaliation.
Americans should ask hard questions—about the true motivations behind this war, about its likely consequences, and about whether it serves the nation’s interest or merely advances the aims of others.
War with Iran is not a “precision strike.” It is a geopolitical earthquake—and one whose aftershocks have only just begun.