As tensions between the United States and Iran escalate, President Donald Trump’s reluctance to launch a direct military strike on Iran has sparked global curiosity. Despite approving attack plans targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, such as the Fordo enrichment site, Trump has repeatedly emphasized ambiguity, stating, “I may do it, I may not do it. Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” This hesitation reflects a complex web of strategic, political, and military considerations, compounded by Iran’s potential for devastating retaliation.
The Stakes: Why Trump Is Cautious
Iran’s Nuclear Program and the Fordo Dilemma
Trump’s focus on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, particularly the heavily fortified Fordo facility, underscores his stated goal of preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Fordo, buried deep under a mountain near Qom, is considered nearly impervious to Israeli strikes, requiring U.S. bunker-busting bombs like the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. However, attacking Fordo risks radioactive fallout, which could harm U.S. allies in the region and provoke international backlash.
Trump’s hesitation may stem from the delicate balance between neutralizing Iran’s nuclear threat and avoiding catastrophic consequences. While he has expressed impatience with diplomacy, rejecting Iran’s refusal to abandon uranium enrichment, the prospect of a military strike triggering a broader conflict looms large.
Domestic Political Pressure
Trump’s “America First” doctrine and campaign promises to avoid “endless wars” resonate with his base, many of whom oppose U.S. entanglement in Middle Eastern conflicts. A direct attack on Iran could alienate isolationist supporters, as evidenced by debates within his party. For instance, conservative voices like Congressman Thomas Massie and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson have criticized potential U.S. involvement, arguing it contradicts Trump’s anti-war stance.
An opinion poll by Gray House indicates 79% of Trump voters support providing offensive weapons to Israel, but enthusiasm wanes for direct U.S. military action, with many expressing concerns on Truth Social about another Middle Eastern quagmire.
Israel’s Dominance and U.S. Support Role
Israel’s ongoing campaign against Iran, dubbed “Operation Rising Lion,” has significantly weakened Tehran’s military infrastructure, including air defenses, missile sites, and nuclear facilities. With Israel claiming “full aerial superiority” over Iran, Trump may see little need for direct U.S. intervention, especially since American forces are already assisting with missile defense and intelligence support.
By “subcontracting” the offensive to Israel, Trump avoids direct responsibility for civilian casualties or escalation, though this strategy risks drawing the U.S. into conflict if Iran retaliates against American assets.
Trump’s “Madman” Diplomacy
Trump’s unpredictable rhetoric, including calls for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and cryptic threats about knowing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s location, aligns with the “madman theory” of foreign policy. This approach seeks to coerce adversaries through deliberate ambiguity. By keeping Iran guessing, Trump may hope to pressure Tehran into concessions without firing a shot. However, Iran’s defiant response, with Khamenei rejecting surrender and warning of “irreparable damage,” suggests this tactic has limits.
Iran’s Retaliation: Three High-Risk Scenarios
If the U.S. were to strike Iran, Tehran’s response could range from conventional military actions to asymmetric warfare, leveraging its regional influence and missile capabilities. Below, we outline three plausible retaliation scenarios based on recent developments.
Missile and Drone Strikes on U.S. Bases
Iran has prepared missiles and equipment to target U.S. military bases across the Middle East, including in Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf states, according to U.S. intelligence officials. With approximately 40,000 U.S. troops stationed in the region, these bases are vulnerable to Iran’s ballistic missiles and drones.
-
Recent Context: Iran has fired over 400 missiles at Israel since June 13, 2025, demonstrating its missile capabilities. While most were intercepted, 24 civilians were killed, indicating Iran’s ability to overwhelm defenses.
-
Impact: A direct attack on U.S. bases could result in American casualties, triggering a cycle of escalation. Experts warn that even minor losses would pressure Trump to retaliate, potentially spiraling into a broader war.
-
Strategic Risk: Targeting U.S. bases in Arab countries could alienate Iran’s regional allies, isolating Tehran diplomatically. However, Iran may view this as a necessary response to U.S. aggression.
Disruption of Global Oil Supplies
Iran could leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments, to disrupt energy markets. By deploying mines, missiles, or proxy forces like the Houthis in Yemen, Iran could target oil tankers or infrastructure, spiking oil prices and destabilizing the global economy.
-
Recent Context: Iran has hinted at restricting Gulf access, and Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping have resumed, signaling Iran’s willingness to use proxies.
-
Impact: A disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could increase oil prices by $10–$20 per barrel, impacting U.S. consumers and Trump’s domestic approval ratings.
-
Strategic Risk: Such actions would provoke international condemnation and potentially draw in other powers, like China or Russia, complicating the conflict.
Cyberattacks and Terrorism
Iran’s cyber capabilities and proxy networks, including Hezbollah and other militias, pose a significant threat to U.S. interests. Tehran could launch cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure, such as power grids or financial systems, or orchestrate terrorist attacks via its proxies.
-
Recent Context: In 2022, Iran was linked to a cyberattack in Albania, showcasing its ability to target foreign systems. Additionally, a 2024 drone attack by an Iranian-backed militia in Jordan killed three U.S. soldiers, highlighting the proxy threat.
-
Impact: Cyberattacks could disrupt U.S. domestic stability, while terrorist attacks on American soil or embassies would inflame public opinion, forcing Trump’s hand militarily.
-
Strategic Risk: Iran’s use of proxies allows plausible deniability, complicating U.S. retaliation. However, overreach could weaken Iran’s proxy network if Israel continues targeting groups like Hezbollah.
The Human Cost and Regional Fallout
The ongoing Israel-Iran conflict has already exacted a heavy toll. Since Israel’s strikes began on June 13, 2025, 585 people have been killed in Iran, including 239 civilians, according to Human Rights Activists. Iran’s retaliatory missile barrages have killed 24 civilians in Israel.
A U.S. strike could exacerbate this humanitarian crisis, with thousands of Iranians fleeing Tehran amid Israeli bombardment. Social unrest is also brewing, as evidenced by a hacked Iranian state TV broadcast urging citizens to “rise up” against the regime.
Regionally, U.S. involvement risks alienating Arab allies, who fear being drawn into a wider war. Qatar and Oman are mediating ceasefire efforts, while China has begun evacuating its nationals from both Iran and Israel, signaling global concerns about escalation.
Trump’s Next Move: Diplomacy or War?
Despite approving attack plans, Trump’s hesitation suggests he is weighing diplomatic alternatives. Reports indicate Iran has signaled willingness to negotiate if Israel halts its attacks, with foreign ministers from the UK, France, and Germany planning to meet Iran’s Abbas Araghchi in Geneva on June 20, 2025.
However, Trump’s hardening rhetoric, including his claim of “complete control of the skies over Iran,” indicates a shift toward military posturing. The deployment of U.S. naval assets, including the USS Nimitz and USS Carl Vinson, alongside F-22 and F-35 aircraft, underscores readiness for potential strikes.
A High-Stakes Gamble
Trump’s reluctance to directly attack Iran reflects a calculated assessment of the risks—regional escalation, domestic backlash, and Iran’s multifaceted retaliation capabilities. While Israel’s campaign has weakened Iran’s military, a U.S. strike could ignite a broader conflict with unpredictable consequences. Iran’s potential responses, from missile strikes to oil disruptions and cyberattacks, pose significant threats to U.S. interests.
As diplomatic channels flicker and military assets converge, the world watches Trump’s next move. Will he opt for a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or will he unleash the “overwhelming force” promised by his administration? The answer will shape the Middle East—and global stability—for years to come.
