The Trump administration conducted a series of retaliatory, surprise airstrikes against the physical infrastructure of Iranian nuclear facilities. This unprecedented level of military action surprised most people. On June 13, President Donald Trump announced the strikes. This was immediately followed by Israel launching its own military offensive against Iran, heightening concerns to prevent the nation from developing nuclear arms. The landscape is changing quickly. Trump promised that the U.S. will take no more than two weeks to deliberate on additional military moves.
Trump’s statement came amid widespread speculation about the U.S.’s next moves in Iran. He said to reporters, “Nobody knows what I’m going to do. This nonsensical statement further underscores the chaos that has largely characterized this administration’s approach to the whole of foreign policy in the region. The airstrikes targeted key nuclear sites, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, utilizing bunker buster bombs weighing 13,500 kg (30,000 lb).
The Trump administration defended these moves as within its “peace through strength” doctrine. In an immediate context, officials claimed that the strikes represented a limited, one-off occurrence intended to primarily degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities and serve wider strategic objectives. In return, they called on Iran not to retaliate, but to come back to the negotiating table.
Many people in Iran saw the U.S. bombing strike as a peace initiative. Asal, an Iranian citizen, expressed disillusionment with the situation: “No one is rooting for either side to win. We just want peace. Not even those Iranians who wanted a regime change are happy. They weren’t so much hoping for an alternative path as much as they were hoping at least Trump would provide them the two weeks.
The context for all of these events is Israel’s push for unilateral U.S. support for its war on Iran. Israeli provocations The IDF had been involved in hundreds of airstrikes to try to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions. They had maintained that U.S. alone had the ordnance to feel confident in the ability to strike buried Iranian infrastructure.
Iran’s counter has been resolutely focused on refusing to negotiate with an administration led by Donald Trump. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shrilled against any calls for diplomatic negotiation. He asserted that Iran will not deal with an American administration it considers hostile. This rejection is indicative of just how much the two countries have come to mistrust each other.
Navid, an Iranian national, had the most powerful argument. He implied that today’s U.S. attacks were more attributable to Trump’s personal ambitions than to sound strategy. He remarked, “He always wants to swoop in like Superman and do the things he claims no one else can.” And plenty of others feel the same way. They are convinced the military strikes came from a place of ego, not a defined foreign policy.
The fear and anxiety that came in the wake of the U.S. attack were tangible feelings among Iranians. Ava, a resident of Tehran, expressed her anger towards both the regime and external calls for war: “We are angry, scared and frankly disgusted by not only the regime but each one of you outside Iran who is sitting in the comfort of your homes and calling for US war on us. Who are you to decide for us?”