Donald Trump has taken the riskiest and most potentially devastating step of his second term: a full-scale air strike against Iran’s major nuclear facilities, described by his advisors as “limited and contained.” The White House is seeking to sell the operation as a surgical strike aimed at neutralizing a growing threat, not launching an all-out war in the Middle East.

The attack — which hit the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan sites — constitutes a high-stakes gamble on Trump’s part. Unlike other moves by his administration, like tariffs that ended up being watered down, here the president has gone “all the way,” even disregarding the advice of key allies within the MAGA movement. The question now is whether this offensive will be seen as a successful nuclear containment maneuver, or the first act of a war that could consume the region — and his presidency.

A Risky Strategy with No Clear End

Trump’s message was clear: any Iranian retaliation will provoke a “much stronger” response from Washington. In his eyes, Iran is going through a moment of weakness, worn down by months of Israeli attacks and pressured by economic sanctions. This weakness allowed U.S. B-2 bombers to move in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. Surrounded by U.S. forces and under Israeli air dominance, the Shiite regime could hardly sustain a prolonged confrontation, say its advisors.

In other words, despite the decision to attack nuclear facilities, the Trump administration wants to avoid becoming embroiled in a protracted war. The president hopes that the U.S. can absorb limited Iranian retaliation and steer clear of deeper involvement in the war. This strategy could work, but is incredibly risky. The dilemma over continued military intervention will intensify if Iran persists in its defiance and fails to meet the United States’ demands, or if it turns out that Iran still retains a significant nuclear capability. 

Although hard-hit, the Iranian regime still retains ample capacity to respond: it can activate allied militias, close the Strait of Hormuz, attack U.S. interests, or even strike directly at the Gulf petromonarchies (although the latter would further isolate it from regional states). All options are on the table, and none of them exclude escalation, although the costs of such a course are very high.

The Islamic Regime’s Difficult Choices

Iran is at a tragic crossroads. It can opt for containment and seek a negotiated exit, although this would imply accepting a position of extreme weakness, both internally and regionally. It would be, for many within the regime, an intolerable capitulation. Or it can respond with force, dragging the region into a major conflict that would put at stake not only the military balance, but the very survival of the Islamic Republic.

Tehran is perhaps most likely to go a third way: a calibrated, symbolic but noisy retaliation that allows it to save face without crossing Washington’s red lines. The missile launches in Israel after the bombings have not yet provoked a response. The goal would be to maintain internal cohesion, minimally punish the U.S. or its allies, and avoid open war — a “Saddam Hussein-style” exit after the 1991 war with the United States, in which Washington preserved the Iraqi leader, who initiated a fierce internal repression to stay in power. 

But even this containment has risks. It only takes one miscalculation, one U.S. victim, one too visible attack, for the conflict to boil over. As Ilan Goldenberg warns in an article in Foreign Affairs written after the U.S. attack:

Accidents and miscalculations could make things much worse. Iran could attempt to pursue a more limited missile response but end up stumbling into “catastrophic success” when one missile breaches American defenses and causes much more damage than the Iranians were expecting, in the process drawing the United States deeper into the conflict.

A War that Redefines Alliances and Warnings

Trump justified the attack as necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He publicly thanked Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu before the U.S. pilots. The gesture was not an accident: Israel was not only informed, but would have played a key role in the operation and in the political pressure that led to this decision. 

It’s further proof that Tel Aviv is no longer acting simply as an ally of Washington, but as an actor seeking to manipulate its protector. This represents a dangerous reversal of the traditional division of roles between the imperialist center and its client states, with unpredictable consequences in the various global geopolitical scenarios, where the United States intended to delegate its former role as global policeman.

But this alignment may have strong consequences, even within the United States. In the United States, public perception — especially among nationalist and isolationist sectors of the MAGA movement — any human, economic, or military cost derived from this offensive will also fall on Israel. The voices of figures such as Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, who warned against a “new Iraq,” could be strengthened if Iran opts for a forceful response. 

Consider that, already on the opposite spectrum of the political chessboard, Israel’s conduct in Gaza has drastically reduced support for the U.S.-Israel alliance. The consequences could be fatal if the United States becomes involved in a war that most Americans do not believe it should be involved in. And if it goes badly, American public opinion will turn strongly against Israel.

The World Takes Note: No Bomb, No Guaranteed Protection

The bombing of Iran not only marks a turning point for Trump’s presidency, but could redefine the global security architecture for decades to come. The message it leaves is brutal in its clarity: deterrence is no longer based on treaties or negotiations, but on the ability to strike first and strike hard.

For Iran, the choice is lethal: escalate and risk the total destruction of the regime or accept a deal from a humiliated position, possibly under persistent threats. But even if it opts for containment, the regime will hardly forget the lesson: not having the bomb was its strategic mistake.

Beyond the Persian Gulf, the echoes of the attack are already reverberating in Pyongyang, Islamabad, Beijing, and Moscow. In a world where the United States can launch a large-scale operation without congressional approval, without an international mandate and without immediate consequences, the pure logic of the balance of power trumps diplomacy.

The question floating around the world’s chancelleries is not what Iran will do, but who will be the next to seek its own nuclear guarantee. Because after Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, it’s clear that the only real red line in this new world disorder is not the illusion of a supposed “international legality,” but the capacity for mutually assured destruction.

In other words, Trump not only bombed Iran — he also exploded the fragile equilibrium on which a semblance of global order still rested. One more piece of evidence, after the war in Ukraine and the genocide in Palestine, of the accelerated entry into an epoch of wars, crises, and possibly revolutions, which are perhaps being prepared in this shaking world, and certainly faster than the governments and major states of all those reactionary capitalist states that are less and less in control of the course of events.

Originally published in Spanish on June 22 in La Izquierda Diario