President Donald Trump authorized air strikes on Iran, including an operation the Pentagon called Operation Epic Fury, that killed the country’s supreme leader and set in motion a sweeping campaign Washington says is aimed at dismantling Tehran’s nuclear capabilities and weakening its ruling system. The administration framed the action as a necessary punishment for decades of regional interference, while warning American losses were possible and insisting force could be scaled up or stopped quickly depending on how events unfold.
Trump described the campaign as potentially brief or prolonged, saying he could “go long and take over the whole thing, or end it in two or three days,” and he signaled that heavy, targeted bombing “will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week, or as long as necessary.” The strikes followed a demand from Washington that Iran end its nuclear program, halt ballistic missile production and stop supporting proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
The president monitored the operation at Mar-a-Lago with top advisers, while senior officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard, tracked the action from the White House Situation Room and by conference line. The administration ordered the largest U.S. military buildup in the Middle East since 2003 to support the campaign.
Security analysts warned the escalation could spin out of 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 argued that removing Iran’s leadership likely would require ground forces. Iran’s retaliatory strikes on U.S. partners across the region—Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar and elsewhere—suggest Tehran intends a tougher response than it showed after previous clashes, raising the risk of a broader regional war that could disrupt global trade and entangle American forces.
A prolonged conflict would also complicate other foreign-policy aims touted by the administration, including Gaza reconstruction and tighter relations with Saudi Arabia, and could damage Trump’s standing at home amid voter frustrations over living costs and other issues. Trump returned to office promising to end “forever wars,” but his presidency has already included military actions in Iran, Venezuela and Syria, prompting questions about the consistency of his approach.
Reports of internal White House disagreement surfaced in the run-up to the strikes. Some senior officials privately expressed reservations even as the president publicly threatened action. Critics accuse the administration of a freewheeling foreign policy that moves without sufficient groundwork to secure congressional or public backing; supporters counter that an unconventional style has produced diplomatic wins, such as a ceasefire in Gaza and increased European financial support for NATO burdens.
Trump did not seek congressional authorization before launching the strikes. Most Republicans publicly endorsed the action; House Speaker Mike Johnson said the administration had pursued peaceful options before using force. Democrats condemned the decision to bypass Congress and criticized the White House for failing to outline post-strike plans. Former vice president Kamala Harris accused Trump of leading 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 further escalation through a pattern of intermittent strikes.
The partisan split means Trump may have to fight politically at home while managing a new conflict abroad. With midterm elections approaching, House Democrats were preparing efforts to restrict the president’s war powers in Iran. Democratic aides pressed for clarity on how Washington would govern, stabilize or rebuild territories affected by the campaign, saying a coherent post-strike strategy has yet to be presented.
Trump’s public rhetoric mixed seriousness with bluster—joking that Iranians might call him to ask whom he would pick as a successor while repeatedly stressing the option to continue strikes. The campaign represents a major gamble: an attempt to force a rapid change in Iran’s trajectory by military means, with uncertain military, regional and political consequences that could define his presidency and reshape U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
