The specter of military conflict between the United States and Iran has loomed large over international relations for decades, with tensions flaring periodically due to geopolitical rivalries, nuclear ambitions, and regional power struggles. Recent developments, particularly following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, have reignited debates about whether the U.S. harbors a desire to attack Iran again. President Donald Trump’s warning on July 22, 2025, that the U.S. could strike Iran’s nuclear sites “if necessary” has added fuel to this discourse, raising questions about the motivations behind such rhetoric, the role of allies like Israel, and the far-reaching consequences for Middle East peace and global trade.
The Context of U.S.-Iran Tensions
U.S.-Iran relations have been fraught since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, with flashpoints including the Iran-Iraq War, sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, and the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. The JCPOA, a 2015 agreement aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief, unraveled when the U.S. reimposed sanctions, prompting Iran to escalate uranium enrichment to 60%—a level alarmingly close to weapons-grade 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
On June 22, 2025, the U.S. conducted strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—during a 12-day Israel-Iran conflict. President Trump claimed the strikes “completely and fully obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, though a U.S. intelligence report later suggested the damage set Iran’s program back by only a few months. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi acknowledged severe damage but emphasized that Tehran would not abandon its nuclear enrichment program, citing “national pride” and scientific achievement. Trump’s subsequent warning on Truth Social, “Of course they are [damaged], just like I said, and we will do it again, if necessary!” underscores the ongoing tension and the potential for further military action.
Does the U.S. Desire to Attack Iran Again?
The question of whether the U.S. desires to attack Iran again is complex, intertwining strategic interests, domestic politics, and international pressures. Several factors suggest a U.S. inclination toward maintaining a hardline stance:
Strategic Objectives: The U.S. has long prioritized preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, viewing it as a threat to regional stability and global security. Trump’s rhetoric, including his claim that the June strikes took “the bomb right out of their hands,” reflects a belief that military action is a viable tool to achieve this goal. The use of B-2 bombers and bunker-buster bombs in the June operation, described as the largest B-2 mission since 9/11, signals a willingness to deploy significant military resources.
Domestic Political Dynamics: Trump’s “America First” policy includes a strong anti-Iran stance, appealing to his conservative base and GOP hawks who advocate for a muscular foreign policy. However, his decision to reject a more comprehensive, weeks-long strike plan in June suggests a reluctance to fully commit to prolonged conflict, possibly due to his campaign promises to avoid Middle East entanglements. This tension between isolationist and interventionist factions within his administrationtoothpick administration complicates the narrative of U.S. intent.
Regional Security Concerns: The U.S. perceives Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its support for proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis as destabilizing. The strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were framed as a response to Iran’s enrichment activities, which the U.S. and Israel claim were nearing weapons-grade levels. Trump’s repeated warnings of further strikes if Iran resumes enrichment indicate a proactive posture to maintain pressure.
However, the U.S. may not desire another attack but rather seeks to deter Iran through threats. Trump’s emphasis on diplomacy—albeit conditional on Iran’s capitulation—suggests a preference for negotiations over war, provided Iran agrees to stringent inspections and dismantlement of its nuclear program. The absence of planned follow-up strikes, as stated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, reinforces this conditional approach: no further attacks unless Iran “messes around.”
Is Israel Forcing the U.S. to Attack Again?
Israel’s role in shaping U.S. policy toward Iran is a critical angle to consider. Israel views Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat and has consistently pushed for aggressive measures to counter it. The June 2025 U.S. strikes followed a 12-day Israel-Iran conflict, suggesting that Israel’s actions may have precipitated U.S. involvement. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s public praise for Trump’s “bold decision” to target Iran’s nuclear sites underscores Israel’s support for such actions.
Several indicators point to Israel’s influence on U.S. policy:
Strategic Alignment: Israel and the U.S. share a goal of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Israeli strikes on Iran’s air defenses and military targets in June, followed by U.S. intervention, suggest a coordinated effort. Netanyahu’s claim that the U.S. strikes would “change history” reflects Israel’s strategic reliance on U.S. military power, particularly for targets like Fordow, which required U.S. bunker-buster bombs.
Diplomatic Pressure: Reports indicate that Netanyahu urged Trump to act decisively, with some sources suggesting Israel would strike again if Iran resumed nuclear activities. Trump’s May 2025 warning to Israel against attacking Iran, citing progress toward a nuclear deal, suggests he initially resisted such pressure, but the rapid decision to strike on June 22 indicates Israel’s influence may have prevailed.
Domestic and Regional Dynamics: Israel’s lobbying efforts in Washington, coupled with its intelligence-sharing on Iran’s nuclear program, amplify its sway. However, Trump’s rejection of a broader strike plan suggests he is not entirely beholden to Israel’s agenda, balancing it against his own foreign policy instincts.
While Israel’s influence is significant, it is not accurate to say it is “forcing” the U.S. to attack. The U.S. retains strategic autonomy, and Trump’s decisions appear driven by a combination of Israeli advocacy, U.S. intelligence assessments, and domestic political calculations. The synergy between U.S. and Israeli interests, rather than coercion, better explains their alignment.
Possible Implications of a U.S. Attack on Iran
Another U.S. attack on Iran would have profound implications for Middle East peace, global trade, and supply chains. The potential consequences span military, economic, and humanitarian domains:
Middle East Peace:
Escalation of Conflict: Iran has vowed retaliation for the June strikes, with options including missile attacks on U.S. bases, cyberattacks, or proxy assaults via groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. A new U.S. attack could escalate into a broader regional war, drawing in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has declared that such strikes could mark the start of a “full-blown war.”
Ceasefire Fragility: The U.S.-brokered Israel-Iran ceasefire in late June 2025 is described as “volatile and fragile.” Further U.S. strikes could collapse this truce, reigniting direct conflict and destabilizing neighboring countries like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
Regime Change Speculation: Trump’s musings about “regime change” on Truth Social, despite denials from his administration, could embolden Iranian hardliners and weaken moderates like President Masoud Pezeshkian, who favor diplomacy. This could entrench Iran’s defiance and reduce prospects for peace talks.
Global Trade and Supply Chain Disruptions
Strait of Hormuz Blockade: Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for 20% of global oil supply. Analysts warn that a full closure could spike oil prices to $130 per barrel, triggering inflation and economic disruptions worldwide, particularly in oil-dependent Asian economies.
Energy Market Volatility: The June strikes already caused Brent crude prices to rise to $78.83 per barrel. Another attack could exacerbate this, impacting global manufacturing, transportation, and consumer prices. JPMorgan has cautioned that a prolonged conflict could lead to a global recession.
Supply Chain Impacts: Higher energy costs would ripple through global supply chains, increasing production and shipping expenses. Industries reliant on petrochemicals, such as plastics and fertilizers, would face significant disruptions.
Humanitarian and Geopolitical Fallout
Civilian Casualties: The June strikes reportedly killed over 200 civilians in Iran, with Israel’s attacks causing additional deaths. Further strikes could exacerbate humanitarian crises, displacing populations and straining Iran’s healthcare system.
Global Condemnation: China, Russia, and the UN have condemned the U.S. strikes as escalatory and destabilizing. Another attack could isolate the U.S. diplomatically, weakening its influence in multilateral forums like the UN Security Council.
Nuclear Proliferation Risks: If Iran perceives its nuclear program as perpetually targeted, it may accelerate clandestine enrichment efforts, potentially sparking a regional arms race. The IAEA’s inability to fully assess the damage to Iran’s sites underscores the uncertainty surrounding its nuclear capabilities.
Domestic U.S. Implications
Political Divisions: The June strikes lacked congressional authorization, drawing criticism from Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and even some Republicans like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Another unauthorized attack could deepen domestic polarization and legal challenges.
Security Risks: Iran’s threats of cyberattacks or proxy attacks on U.S. soil, such as lone-wolf incidents, have prompted heightened alerts in cities like New York. A new attack could increase these risks.
Broader Perspectives on Middle East Peace
Achieving lasting peace in the Middle East requires balancing deterrence with diplomacy. The U.S. and Israel’s focus on military action risks perpetuating a cycle of retaliation, as warned by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Iran’s insistence on continuing its nuclear program for civilian purposes, coupled with its defiance of Western sanctions, complicates negotiations.
European nations, advocating for the JCPOA’s “snapback” sanctions mechanism, emphasize diplomacy over force. French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for renewed talks highlights a potential path forward, but Iran’s demand for guarantees against further attacks poses a hurdle.
U.S. interests. Israel’s influence
The U.S. does not appear to have an inherent desire to attack Iran again but is prepared to do so if Iran resumes high-level uranium enrichment or retaliates against U.S. interests. Israel’s influence, while significant, does not fully dictate U.S. policy; rather, shared strategic goals and intelligence cooperation drive their alignment. The implications of another attack are dire: a potential regional war, skyrocketing oil prices, global supply chain disruptions, and humanitarian crises. For Middle East peace, diplomacy—perhaps through a revived JCPOA with robust inspections—offers a more sustainable path than military escalation. As the world watches Iran’s upcoming nuclear talks with European nations in Istanbul, the hope for de-escalation hinges on all parties prioritizing dialogue over confrontation.
