After the U.S. Strikes on Iran: Strategic Success, Chaos, or Blunder?
My latest article for civicparticipantion.ro
This week I published an article for the Center for Civic Participation and Democracy (a think tank affiliated with the National University for Political Studies and Public Administration in Romania), examining the questions around the US strike on Iran and its long-term consequences.
The Center for Civic Participation and Democracy was founded within an academic framework, with a mission to empower democracy through research, dialogue and action. The Center does a lot of work around tracking online engagement and disinformation, electoral behavior, addressing today’s challenges to participation and democracy. You can check their website here: https://civicparticipation.ro/about/
I am providing regular analyses and reports for the Center on the most relevant foreign policy topics. My intention is two-fold: one, to bring more clarity and explain foreign policy developments for a interested audience, and second, to raise questions, present scenarios, spark debate rather than just offering a personal opinion. I sometimes include recommendations and I don’t shy away from posing uncomfortable questions or addressing controversial issues.
For my Romanian speaking readers please see here the original article examining the US strike on Iran and the long-term questions it raises. My intention was to offer a perspective from the US to the Romanian audience . https://civicparticipation.ro/dupa-loviturile-sua-asupra-iranului-strategie-de-succes-haos-sau-eroare/.
And here is the English translation for all my English speaking readers.
“On the night of Saturday, June 21 (U.S. time; early Sunday morning local time), the United States launched an attack on three nuclear facilities in Iran. The operation, dubbed “Midnight Hummer,” involved 125 aircraft, including B-2 bombers that hit the Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites with massive 13,000-kg bombs capable of penetrating 18 meters of concrete or 61 meters of earth before detonating. At the same time, the nuclear facility in Esfahan was targeted with cruise missiles launched from submarines. President Donald Trump described the operation as a “spectacular military success” and announced that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated.” Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio held press briefings and made media rounds the following day to tout the triumph of the operation, emphasizing that the United States was not pursuing “regime change” in Iran.
Since then, we have witnessed a cascade of shifting positions, confused messaging, and contradictory assessments. As with other major issues (tariffs, the war in Ukraine), the keywords associated with the current U.S. administration's strategy are uncertainty and inconsistency.
Initial reactions within the United States ranged from praise for American leadership to calls for Trump’s impeachment for involving the country in war without Congressional approval. Was the President’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities a masterstroke that could begin the process of denuclearizing Iran and bringing peace to the Middle East, or a strategic error with long-term consequences that remain difficult to predict?
This article examines how these developments are perceived from within the United States, where domestic and foreign policy are deeply intertwined. Public opinion has a powerful influence on foreign policy decisions, and foreign policy failures can be highly costly in domestic political dynamics. Michael Mandelbaum, one of the most prominent scholars of U.S. foreign policy, notes that a defining characteristic of US foreign policy is its “democratic” nature. In his words,
“The public has more influence on foreign policy than in other countries. Public opinion has had considerable influence, particularly in matters of war... From the beginning, American citizens, unlike Europeans, have played a major role in shaping their country’s actions abroad.”
From the very beginning we must say there is bipartisan political consensus on several points: that Iran, as a state sponsor of terrorism, is a security threat to the region, to the United States, and globally, and must not acquire nuclear weapons; and that Israel has the right to defend itself and act to protect its national security. No one disputes the need for action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. No one underestimates the threat posed by the regime in Tehran. But serious questions are emerging on how the U.S. strike was decided, as well as its outcomes and consequences.
I believe now more than ever we need to enourage meaningful conversations, reading and writing, to promote debates, ask questions and empower critical thinking based in evidence, science, research and facts. This newsletter is one of the ways I want to contribute to this mission. I want to provide more than just simple opinions, and I put in these articles research, intellectual effort, an academic component along with a values-based perspective. If you believe the same principles and want to support my writing please subscribe or update to a paid subscription. You can also support by sharing my writing with your friends, hiting the like button or leaving a comment. Every bit of engagement helps build a stronger, more thoughtful public conversation.
What comes next?
The first area of concern is what happens now. No one can say with certainty what will unfold in the coming weeks or the long-term ramifications of this decision. Despite the administration’s optimism that this could be a “one and done” strike that ends Iran’s nuclear ambitions and brings peace, history suggests otherwise. In a recent Foreign Affairs article, Lawrence Freedman argued how difficult it is to end wars and how we have entered an era of “forever wars.” Despite this, military planners continue to think in terms of short wars, where decisive outcomes are expected in the first days or even hours of combat. Freedman warns of the “short war fallacy”:
“So ingrained is the fixation with speed that generations of U.S. military commanders have learned to shudder at the mention of attritional warfare, embracing decisive maneuver as the route to quick victories.”
Only a few days have passed since the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and already it’s becoming clear that the initial assessments were overly optimistic.
Historian Timothy Snyder reminds us of five principles about war:
“1. Many things reported with confidence in the first hours and days will turn out not to be true; 2. whatever they say, the people who start wars are often thinking chiefly about domestic politics; 3. the rationale given for a war will change over time, such that the actual success or failure in achieving a named objective is less relevant than one might think; 4. wars are unpredictable; 5. wars are easy to start and hard to stop.”
Snyder’s words quickly gained traction in U.S. discourse surrounding the current conflict, along with a remark often quoted by former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis: “The enemy gets a vote.”
In short, we cannot yet know how Iran will respond in the long term. In an optimistic scenario, a weakened and isolated Iran might agree to a ceasefire and a return to negotiations. But most scenarios now point to a resumption of the nuclear program, escalation risks, and a harder diplomatic path. Jennifer Kavanagh of Georgetown University and Rosemary Kelanic of Defense Priorities argue that credible assurances must accompany military threats:
“Trump may hope that his recent display of U.S. military power, combined with Israel’s aggressive military campaign over the past two weeks, will force Iran to compromise, but this is unlikely. If anything, Iran’s leaders will be more reluctant to pursue diplomacy after Trump twice allowed ongoing talks with Iran to be scuttled by military action - first by greenlighting Israeli airstrikes and then by joining the war directly.”
Moreover, we still lack reliable and verifiable information regarding the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities or the status of its nuclear program. We don’t know what happened to the hundreds of kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, nor whether and where it might have been moved. The most recent updates suggest that the strikes failed to destroy critical components of the program, which may only have been delayed by several months. The President and the Secretary of Defense continued to claim the nuclear facilities were “obliterated”.
How was the decision made?
The second concern relates to strategy and objectives. It’s unclear whether President Trump had a defined strategy, and the frequent shifts in position and vague goals suggest a lack of coherent planning beyond the broadly accepted principle of denying Iran nuclear weapons. U.S. officials have contradicted each other on the goals of the operation, and the President left open the possibility of “regime change.”
Reports have surfaced about Fox News playing a role in shifting the President’s stance, initially reluctant to pursue military action and favoring a diplomatic solution. U.S. officials initially responded cautiously when Israel launched its attack on Iran and dismissed direct U.S. involvement. But according to sources, including The New York Times, Trump’s position changed as Israeli military action began to be portrayed as a resounding success in the media. “U.S. involvement may have been driven by the media coverage of Israel’s destruction of Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. Israel was ‘winning,’ and Trump wanted in on that winning.”
The third point of controversy concerns the decision-making process itself, carried out without support from allies, Congress, or the public. The power to declare war lies with the U.S. Congress, yet presidents have increasingly engaged troops abroad without Congressional authorization. The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of U.S. forces entering hostilities and limits engagement to 60 days without further approval. The lack of communication with Congress before and after the strike has become a major source of tension and uncertainty.
The intelligence behind the decision is also unclear. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that while Iran was enriching uranium, it was not close to weaponizing it. Democratic Congressman Jim Himes, a ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and the “Gang of Eight” (congressional leaders briefed on classified matters), said: “I have not seen any intelligence, as a member of the Gang of Eight, to suggest that Iran had taken the decision to build a weapon. I don’t think there is any intelligence out there that suggest that that’s true.” Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia stated: “America was lied into a war in 2002 against Iraq with a Republican administration giving us false information about Iraq’s weapons program. I have grave concern we are going down the same path. There was no imminent threat to the United States. It was an offensive war of choice.”
What does the American public think?
Recent events have revived strong memories of the Iraq war, which began with now-discredited claims that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. Back then, in the post-9/11 context, there was broad public and political support for the war. But as the promise of a short intervention turned into a “forever war” with thousands of American soldiers losing their lives, the public grew increasingly averse to direct military involvement abroad. Donald Trump himself launched his political career, and won the elections, on an isolationist message opposed to “forever wars,” under the banner of “America First.”
Today, a majority of Americans oppose direct U.S. involvement in a Middle East war. Opponents span the ideological spectrum, from the progressive left to key MAGA figures. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on June 23, only 36% of Americans support the U.S. strike on Iranian targets and believe it makes the country safer. 50% disapprove of how President Trump is handling the situation with Iran, and only 35% approve. 69% believe the U.S. should engage militarily in the Middle East only if directly threatened, this includes 57% of Republicans, 73% of independents, and 80% of Democrats.
In place of a conclusion: more unknowns
If the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities had ended the war and halted Iran’s nuclear program, we might be at the dawn of a new era in the Middle East. But the situation is far more complex. The past few days have once again disproven the illusion of a short war. A diplomatic solution remains possible, but the variables have multiplied, and uncertainty has deepened.
The objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons still stands, but we simply don’t know whether we are now closer or further from achieving it.
David Frum writes in The Atlantic:
“The U.S. strikes on Iran might have been necessary, but the manner in which Trump acted should raise alarms about what lies ahead.”
In the coming weeks, we will likely see a battle of narratives about the operation’s success and consequences. But narratives cannot compensate for the uncertainty and substitute for reality. The future will tell whether this is a turning point toward peace in the Middle East or the beginning of a new phase of escalation.
Just a few days ago, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “The world is now safer.”
Is it?
Thank you for making it this far, to the end of this longer post. If you want to support my writing, subscribe or share it is a friend. We need to spread the word out there that analysis still matters, research still matters and expertise still matters.