Trump’s Iranian gambling filled with risk

Donald Trump, the president, who returned to the White House in January, promising to be a “peacemaker”, made a dramatic step to insert the United States into a conflict between Iran and Israel.

It is far from becoming peace in the Middle East after the entry into office, Trump is now chairing a region of the gap of even larger wars – a battle in which America is an active participant.

In a television address to the Nation from the White House just over two hours after announcing on social media that the US forces had reached three nuclear sites in Iran, the US president said the operation had a “grand success”.

He hoped that his move would open the door to a more lasting peace, in which Iran no longer had the potential to turn into nuclear energy.

Iran said that there was only insignificant damage to its highly fortified Fordo nuclear object. Time will show which country is right.

A flank of Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Minister Pete Heget, Trump warned Iran that if they did not abandon their nuclear program, they would face future attacks that are “far worse and much easier”.

There have been many goals, Trump and the United States will continue after them with “speed, precision and skills.”

Despite the president’s bravado, a prolonged US military engagement in Iran may be the worst scenario for the US, the region and the world.

UN Secretary -General Antonio Guteres warned of a “chaos spiral”, which could be the result of the US decision to escalate the conflict, noting that the Middle East was already “on the edge”.

If Iran takes revenge – as Ayatola Ali Hamenei warns, it will happen in the event of a US attack – then the US side may feel forced to answer.

Trump’s rhetoric this week that Iran had to “unconditionally surrender”, put the president in a position where it would be difficult for him to retreat. Iran, with his own threats, had been supported in a similar angle.

Here’s how the wars start – and how they can expand beyond the control and imagination of the participants.

On Thursday, Donald Trump gave the Iranians a deadline, but this turned out to be much more than expected – only two days. On Saturday night, the US President announced that he was acted.

Were the two weeks for negotiations? Offer to lure Iranians in a false sense of security this weekend? Or are behind -the -scenes negotiations the definition of Trump Steve Vitcof?

At the moment after the impact is known. But in his post on social media and in his television address, Trump tried to open the door for peace.

However, this can be an optimistic perspective. While the Israelis have made significant efforts to degradate Iran’s military capabilities, Ayatol still has a weapon available.

Things can go wrong quickly.

Now the waiting game begins. How will Iran respond to attacks by three of its sites, including Fordo, regarded as the jewelry of the crown of his nuclear program?

Trump seems to be hoping that US strikes are forcing Iran to make more discounts on the negotiation table, but it seems unlikely that a nation will not want to speak while under an Israeli attack, to be more smacked when US bombs fall too.

And although Trump seemed to suggest that the US attack was a one -off, successful event, if this was not the case, then the pressure would strike again – or the president would take a serious political risk of minimal military profit.

This risk involves internal political problems, along with international security issues.

The prospect of an attack on the US against Iran has already caused sharp criticism not only by the Democrats but also by the Trump’s own Trump America First.

The unusual decision of the President to give his national address, surrounded by three of his closest advisers, may be an attempt to design unity in his party.

In particular, Vance is an outspoken supporter of a more reserved US foreign policy and recently gave up on social media to make Trump still a non-interventionist who needs to be used by the suspicion of his supporters.

If this attack is a one -time event, Trump may be able to smooth the divisions in its base. But if she endures the United States in a greater conflict, the president may have an uprising with his ranks.

The Saturday attack was an aggressive move for a president, boasting that he did not start new wars during his first presidential term, and which regularly faced predecessors, who had attracted the country in foreign conflicts last year on the traces of the campaign.

Trump made his move. Where he goes from here, he is not entirely under his control.