In ordering air strikes on Iran and killing its supreme leader in an operation the Pentagon called Operation Epic Fury, President Donald Trump has placed a high-stakes wager: that American military force can achieve in short order what past administrations could not—destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities and topple its ruling system—while avoiding a wider, protracted conflict.
Trump framed the campaign as necessary to punish a regime he said has sown regional chaos since 1979, warning that “American heroes may be lost” but portraying those sacrifices as required to end decades of hostility. He said the bombing could either be brief or extend as long as needed, telling Axios he could “go long and take over the whole thing, or end it in two or three days” and posting that heavy, pinpoint bombing “will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week, or as long as necessary.”
The strikes followed an ultimatum from Washington demanding Iran abandon its nuclear program, halt ballistic missile production and cease support for proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Trump spent Friday night monitoring the campaign at Mar-a-Lago with top advisers, while senior administration officials, including Vice-President JD Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, gathered in the White House Situation Room and stayed connected by conference line to follow the attack in real time.
Analysts warned the escalation could spiral beyond Washington’s control. Mohammed Hafez of the Naval Postgraduate School said the United States has “to go all the way now to effect regime change,” and that doing so likely requires boots on the ground. Iran’s retaliatory strikes on US allies across the region—Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar and elsewhere—suggest Tehran intends to fight back more aggressively than after last year’s attack, raising the risk of a widening regional conflict that could disrupt the global economy and drag the US into a quagmire.
A prolonged campaign could undermine other Trump foreign-policy priorities, including Gaza reconstruction and strengthening ties with Saudi Arabia, and could further erode his domestic standing amid voter frustration over living costs and other issues. The president returned to office promising to end “forever wars,” yet since then has ordered operations in Iran, Venezuela and Syria, among others—deepening questions about the coherence of his approach.
Reports say internal White House divisions emerged in recent weeks over a major military operation in Iran. Some senior officials privately raised concerns even as Trump publicly threatened action and ordered the largest US military buildup in the Middle East since 2003. Critics point to what they call a free-wheeling foreign policy that lacks careful groundwork to win congressional and public support; supporters counter that Trump’s unconventional style has produced diplomatic results, such as a ceasefire in Gaza and greater European financial commitment to NATO.
Trump did not seek congressional approval before launching the campaign. Most Republicans publicly backed the strikes; House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the administration’s attempts at peaceful solutions prior to action. Democrats angrily faulted the White House for bypassing Congress and for failing to articulate post-strike plans. Former vice-president Kamala Harris accused Trump of dragging the country into “a war the American people do not want,” and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the administration withheld “critical details” about the threat and risked wider conflict through “fitful cycles of lashing out.”
The partisan backlash means Trump may have to fight politically at home while managing a new war abroad, with the midterm elections looming and House Democrats preparing to press next week for a vote to rein in the president’s war powers in Iran. Democratic aides questioned what would follow the killing—how to govern, stabilize or rebuild—and said the administration has yet to articulate a clear strategy.
Trump’s rhetoric included a tongue-in-cheek claim that Iranians might call him to ask whom he would pick as a successor, and he repeatedly emphasized the option to continue strikes. For now, the campaign marks a major gamble: a bid to remake Iran’s trajectory by force, with uncertain military, regional and political consequences that could define his presidency and reshape American involvement in the Middle East.
