Trump’s ‘Opportunism First’ — Attacking Iran Opens Pandora’s Box
(China) on 22 June 2025
by (link to original )
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.