Trump’s ‘Opportunism First’ — Attacking Iran Opens Pandora’s Box

Published in Ming Pao
(China) on 22 June 2025
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Hannah La Porte. Edited by Patricia Simoni.
President Donald Trump announced Saturday night that the U.S. had successfully hit three Iranian nuclear facilities, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, asserting “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE.” He also warned Iran not to retaliate or it would face more intense attacks. Trump, who has consistently declared that he would not involve the U.S. in foreign conflicts, is once again pushing the U.S. to the brink of war. The root cause may simply be opportunism at play. Although Iran’s strength has diminished, its response is difficult to predict; the possibility that Israel will take further action, thus dragging the U.S. deeper into the conflict, is an additional risk. The situation in the Middle East has always been precarious; with Trump’s unpredictable behavior, the entire region has become increasingly unpredictable.

Peacemaker Not Praised; History Will Remember Preventing Iran from Going Nuclear

Israel conducted airstrikes on Iran on June 13. During more than a week of attacks, Israel claimed to have caused “significant damage” to Iranian facilities and assassinated multiple senior Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists. However, Israeli media reported that in order to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear program, Israel would need to destroy the Fordow nuclear facility, believed to hold a considerable quantity of near weapons-grade enriched uranium. That facility is built deep inside a mountain; the Israeli army’s bunker bombs would be insufficient to penetrate such thick rock layers. The U.S. would have to act, because the U.S. military possesses 30,000-pound giant bunker bombs with precision guidance capabilities. Trump remained noncommittal on the matter, first saying, “I may do it, I may not do it,” then saying a decision would come within two weeks; and finally on Saturday night deploying B-2 bombers to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump afterward, calling his decision bold and one that would change history.

Relations between Iran and Israel have long been hostile. Iran refuses to recognize Israel, while Netanyahu, since entering politics, has always portrayed Iran as the greatest threat to Israel, insisting it must be curbed before acquiring nuclear weapons. Although Israel has consistently claimed Iran is nearing the nuclear threshold, Western intelligence circles have always remained cautious. In March,U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Congress that Iran had not resumed the nuclear weapons program it ended in 2003. At the beginning of the year, Trump also vetoed Israel’s proposal to take military action against Iran, leaning toward resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations. But recently, Trump’s attention has clearly shifted, saying Iran was very close to possessing nuclear weapons.

According to The New York Times, the reason Trump gave the green light for Israel to take military action is that negotiations between the U.S. and Iran had stalled, leaving him no hope for a deal. Trump has always approached diplomacy as “making deals,” and has repeatedly criticized past U.S. policies that engaged military force in interfering in other countries to achieve regime change.

In 2003, the U.S. sent troops into Iraq on the grounds that it possessed “weapons of mass destruction” and overthrew President Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was later proven that “weapons of mass destruction” did not exist, but the U.S. became deeply entrenched in the complexities of war. Because of this, during his 2016 campaign, Trump emphasized he would no longer involve the U.S. in conflicts, waving the banner of “America First” to attract voters. Now that he has taken military action against Iran, people are bound to assert that Trump broke his promise. Recently, this is also the focus of debate among some Trump supporters. Make America Great Again opinion leaders Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon both recently countered that taking military action violates Trump’s “America First” rhetoric.

However, Trump’s “America First” has never been a firm principle. In an interview with The Atlantic last week, Trump took credit for creating “America First” rhetoric, and said he would define what constitutes “America First.” To those who contend that his military action violates a principle of peace, he argues that allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons is not true peace.

Trump has always longed to shape his image as that of a diplomatic peace-broker. He has repeatedly complained on social media that although he has achieved diplomatic breakthroughs in multiple regions, he has not received the praise he deserves. Now, he may see preventing Iran from going nuclear as a better opportunity to “be remembered in history.” But ironically, the mechanism for restricting Iran’s nuclear development already existed.

In 2015, Iran and six countries including the U.S. reached the nuclear agreement Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which stipulated that Iran’s uranium enrichment level should not exceed 3.67% and the number of centrifuges would also be strictly limited, in exchange for the West lifting sanctions. However, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in May 2018, exerting “maximum pressure,” and Iran also stopped its strict compliance with the agreement. Although former National Security Advisor John Bolton advocated using the opportunity to promote regime change in Iran, Trump did not support it. Even after Israel launched attacks on June 13, U.S. media reported that the proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has been vetoed.

Trump’s vascillatioin between military intervention and diplomatic negotiation is nothing more than an attempt to find a balance point that can both demonstrate strength and avoid war. He may think that, in contrast to the 2003 Iraq war, this time Israel has paved the way with the U.S. military needing only to act once — destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities — and then withdraw.

However, real world politics is never like trash-talking on social media. Since Israel attacked Iran, the outside world has been worried about uncontrolled escalation between the two countries. The spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday strongly condemned the U.S. attack on Iran, stressing that China is willing to work with the international community to restore peace and stability in the Middle East. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres also said that the U.S. airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has escalated the already tense regional situation and poses a direct threat to international peace and security. After being attacked, Iran continued to launch missiles toward Israel. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the U.S. as “lawless,” saying it “will have permanent consequences.”

Withdrawal from Nuclear Agreement Makes the World More Dangerous; Obama’s Prediction Is Coming True

Since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, Israel’s successive attacks on Iran’s regional proxies have undoubtedly significantly weakened Iran’s regional influence. But when pushed to the brink, whether Iran will make a last-ditch move to attack U.S. forces or blockade the Strait of Hormuz are risks that cannot be ignored. In addition, whether this U.S. action can once and for all resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, or whether it will instead prompt Iran to become more determined to develop nuclear weapons, is still uncertain. Whether Israel only hopes to delay Iran for a few years, or intends to completely eliminate Iran’s ambitions, in the end the issue of regime change may be unavoidable. Whether Trump will stick to non-intervention, or ultimately be unable to resist the temptation to “be remembered in history,” has become a key variable in the situation.

When Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement in May 2018, former President Barack Obama predicted that Trump’s decision would make the world more dangerous, forcing the international community to choose between “a nuclear Iran” and “another Middle East war.” Now it appears that this warning has come true.


【明報社評】 特朗普於美國時間周六晚宣布,美軍成功打擊伊朗3處核設施,包括福爾多、納坦茲及伊斯法罕,聲稱「現在是實現和平之時」,同時警告伊朗切勿報復,否則將遭更猛烈打擊。一直聲言不能讓美國捲入外國戰爭的特朗普,如今再次將美國推向戰爭邊緣,究其原因可能只是投機主義作祟。伊朗實力雖被削弱,但其反應難以預測;以色列會否進一步行動,令美國深陷其中,更是潛藏風險。中東局勢本已岌岌可危,加上一個行事難測的特朗普,使整個地區更加詭譎莫測。

「和平締造者」未獲讚
阻伊擁核博「名留青史」

以色列6月13日空襲伊朗,在超過一星期的攻擊中,以色列稱對伊朗設施造成「重大損害」,亦暗殺了多名伊朗軍方高層及核科學家。但據以色列傳媒,要全面摧毁伊朗核計劃,以色列需要破壞相信儲存大量接近武器級別濃縮鈾的福爾多核設施。該設施建於山體深處,以軍地堡炸彈不足以穿透如此厚重岩層,要美國出手,因美軍擁有具備精準導引能力的3萬磅巨型鑽地彈。特朗普對此一直不置可否,先是說「我可能會,可能不會」,然後說兩周內決定,最終周六晚派出B-2轟炸機空襲伊朗核設施。以色列總理內塔尼亞胡事後「祝賀」特朗普,形容他的大膽決定將改變歷史。


伊朗與以色列長期敵對。伊朗拒絕承認以色列,內塔尼亞胡則自政壇出道以來,始終將伊朗描繪為以色列最大威脅,堅稱必須在其獲得核武前加以遏制。儘管以色列一直聲稱伊朗接近核門檻,西方情報界卻始終持保留態度。今年3月,美國國家情報總監加巴德(Tulsi Gabbard)向國會表示,伊朗並未恢復其在2003年終止的核武計劃。特朗普年初亦曾否決以色列對伊朗動武的提議,傾向透過談判解決伊朗核問題。但近期他的態度明顯轉變,稱伊朗「非常接近擁核」。

特朗普之所以向以色列動武開綠燈,《紐約時報》稱是因為美國跟伊朗談判膠着,令他「做交易」無望。特朗普一向以「做交易」處理外交,曾多次批評美國過去以武力干預他國、強行實現政權更替的政策。2003年美國以伊拉克擁有「大殺傷力武器」為由出兵,推翻總統薩達姆政權,後來證實所謂「大殺傷力武器」根本不存在,卻使美國深陷戰爭泥沼。正因如此,特朗普2016年便針對美國人普遍厭戰情緒,強調不再讓美國捲入戰爭,高舉「美國優先」旗幟,吸引選民。如今他對伊朗動武,勢必引來背棄承諾質疑,這亦是部分特朗普支持者近日爭論之焦點。MAGA(讓美國再次偉大)界的輿論領袖卡爾森和班農近日便批評對伊朗動武有違「美國優先」。


不過,特朗普的「美國優先」從來都非堅定原則。他上周接受《大西洋月刊》訪問稱,自己是「美國優先」的創造者,何謂美國優先,由他說了算。對於質疑他動武違反和平原則的人,他辯稱,容許伊朗擁有核武,不是真正的和平。


特朗普一向渴望在外交領域塑造「和平締造者」的形象。他多次於社交平台抱怨,自己明明在多個地區促成外交突破,卻未獲「應得讚賞」。如今,他或許視阻止伊朗擁核為「名留青史」的更佳機會,但諷刺的是,限制伊朗核發展的機制原本早已存在。2015年,伊朗與美國等6國達成核協議(JCPOA),規定其鈾濃度不得超過3.67%,離心機數量亦受嚴格限制,西方則解除部分制裁作交換。特朗普卻於2018年5月單方面退出協議,實施「極限施壓」,伊朗也不再嚴格遵守協議。儘管時任國家安全顧問博爾頓主張應藉機促成伊朗政權更替,特朗普卻未支持。即使6月13日以色列發動襲擊後,美媒亦傳出他否決刺殺伊朗最高領袖哈梅內伊的提議。

特朗普在軍事干預與外交交易之間搖擺,無非為了尋找一個既能展示強勢,又能避免戰爭泥沼的平衡點。他或許以為,跟2003年伊拉克戰爭相比,今次已有以色列開路,美軍只需出動一次,把伊朗核設施炸毁便可抽身而退。不過,現實政治始終不是社交平台打嘴炮。以色列攻擊伊朗以來,外界一直擔心以伊衝突失控。中國外交部發言人昨天強烈譴責美國襲擊伊朗,強調中國願跟國際社會共同為恢復中東地區和平穩定作出努力。聯合國秘書長古特雷斯亦稱,美國空襲伊朗核設施令本已緊張的地區局勢升級,對國際和平與安全構成直接威脅。伊朗在受襲後繼續向以色列發射導彈,伊朗外長阿拉格齊譴責美國「無法無天」,「將產生永久後果」。

退出核協議世界更危險
奧巴馬預言正一語成讖

自哈馬斯2023年7月襲擊以色列後,以色列針對伊朗區內代理人的連番打擊,無疑令到伊朗區內勢力大幅削弱,但在逼至絕境下,伊朗是否會最後一搏,襲擊美軍或封鎖霍爾木茲海峽,都是不容忽視的風險。另外,美國這場行動是否能夠一勞永逸解決伊朗核問題,抑或反而促使伊朗更堅定擁核決心,更是言之尚早。以色列是否僅希望拖延伊朗數年,還是意圖徹底根除伊朗的野心,最終恐怕難以迴避政權更替的議題。特朗普究竟會否堅持不介入,還是終究難敵渴望「名留青史」的誘惑,也成為局勢關鍵變數。

特朗普2018年5月退出伊朗核協議時,前總統奧巴馬曾預言,特朗普的決定將令世界變得更加危險,迫使國際社會在「擁核伊朗」與「另一場中東戰爭」這兩個選項之間挑選。如今看來,這警告正一語成讖。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump and Ukraine: a Step in the Right Direction

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Germany: Bad Prospects

Topics

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving towards the Far Right?

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System

Canada: How To Avoid ICE? Follow the Rules

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump and Ukraine: a Step in the Right Direction

Related Articles

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving towards the Far Right?

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System