Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

Opinion

U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine discusses the mission details of a strike on Iran during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 22, 2025, in Arlington, Virginia.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

In his televised address to the nation Saturday night regarding the U.S. strikes on Iran, President Donald Trump declared that the attacks targeted “the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.” He framed the operation as a necessary response to decades of Iranian aggression, citing past attacks on U.S. personnel and Tehran’s support for militant proxies.

While those justifications were likely key drivers, the decision to intervene was also shaped by a complex interplay of political strategy, alliance dynamics, and considerations of personal legacy.


From what’s publicly known, Trump’s choice to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities appears to have emerged from multiple forces. Initially, reports suggest he had resisted deeper involvement—going so far as to urge Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to delay a strike. But after Israel launched its offensive, the U.S. swiftly escalated the conflict, targeting sites such as Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

Some analysts are already speculating that Trump’s pivot was influenced by pressure from Republican allies and a broader desire to reaffirm U.S. leadership amid heightened geopolitical uncertainty. Historical context adds another layer: Israeli leaders, especially Netanyahu, have long pushed for explicit U.S. support in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump’s decision could thus be interpreted as both an alignment with Israeli strategy and a calculated effort to ensure that the U.S. shaped the narrative and the ultimate outcome.

Whether his motivation was “taking credit” is debatable—but the optics of decisive American involvement, especially after years of projecting strength and unpredictability, are certainly in line with Trump’s political brand. He characterized the strikes as a triumph of U.S. military capability and, notably, called for peace in their aftermath.

In his second inaugural address, Trump forecasted that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and a unifier,” despite global conflicts during his tenure. He often highlighted diplomatic initiatives—like the Abraham Accords and his claimed de-escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan—as evidence of this legacy.

This aspiration—to be remembered as a unifier—creates a fascinating tension. The Israel-Iran conflict presented a real-time test of whether he could maintain that narrative while contemplating direct military involvement.

Trump faced a dilemma. Had Israel achieved a decisive victory alone, it might have complicated Trump’s image. On one hand, staying out could appeal to isolationist-leaning voters and reflect his “America First” philosophy. On the other, refusing to act might have made him appear disengaged in a defining moment—particularly if Israel’s action shifted the balance of power in the region.

In the week leading up to the strikes, Trump’s positioning seemed ambivalent. He praised Israel’s actions as “excellent” while simultaneously offering diplomatic overtures to Iran. His rhetoric—demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and issuing stark warnings to its Supreme Leader—suggested a desire to appear resolute without fully committing U.S. forces.

What shifted in those final days remains unclear. Given Trump’s history of claiming credit for broader institutional successes—economic growth, vaccine development it is reasonable to speculate that a post-facto involvement might have been the ideal outcome: share in the victory without absorbing the initial risk.

Supporters and critics differ on whether this represents strategic brilliance or self-promotion. But in the end, Trump may have orchestrated a best-of-both-worlds scenario—one where Israel bore the immediate burden, and he emerged as a bold, peace-leaning statesman, reinforcing U.S. strength.

There’s no definitive “smoking gun,” but the surrounding context suggests that legacy-building was part of the calculus. The resulting picture is layered: a blend of strategy, symbolism, and personal mythology that historians will undoubtedly scrutinize for decades.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

US President Donald Trump hailed a "tremendous day for the Middle East" as he and regional leaders signed a declaration on Oct. 13, 2025, meant to cement a ceasefire in Gaza, hours after Israel and Hamas exchanged hostages and prisoners. (TNS)

Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

President Trump took a rhetorical victory lap in front of the Israeli parliament Monday. Ignoring his patented departures from the teleprompter, which violated all sorts of valuable norms, it was a speech Trump deserved to give. The ending of the war — even if it’s just a ceasefire — and the release of Israel’s last living hostages is, by itself, a monumental diplomatic accomplishment, and Trump deserves to take a bow.

Much of Trump’s prepared text was forward-looking, calling for a new “golden age” for the Middle East to mirror the one allegedly unfolding here in America. I’m generally skeptical about “golden ages,” here or abroad, and especially leery about any talk about “everlasting peace” in a region that has known “peace” for only a handful of years since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looks into an empty fridge-freezer in a domestic kitchen.

The Trump administration’s suspension of the USDA’s Household Food Security Report halts decades of hunger data tracking.

Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

Trump Gives Up the Fight Against Hunger

A Vanishing Measure of Hunger

Consider a hunger policy director at a state Department of Social Services studying food insecurity data across the state. For years, she has relied on the USDA’s annual Household Food Security Report to identify where hunger is rising, how many families are skipping meals, and how many children go to bed hungry. Those numbers help her target resources and advocate for stronger programs.

Now there is no new data. The survey has been “suspended for review,” officially to allow for a “methodological reassessment” and cost analysis. Critics say the timing and language suggest political motives. It is one of many federal data programs quietly dropped under a Trump executive order on so-called “nonessential statistics,” a phrase that almost parodies itself. Labeling hunger data “nonessential” is like turning off a fire alarm because it makes too much noise; it implies that acknowledging food insecurity is optional and reveals more about the administration’s priorities than reality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Standing Up for Democracy Requires Giving the Other Side Credit When It Is Deserved

U.S. President Donald Trump poses with the signed agreement at a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war on October 13, 2025 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.

(Photo by Suzanne Plunkett - Pool / Getty Images)

Standing Up for Democracy Requires Giving the Other Side Credit When It Is Deserved

American political leaders have forgotten how to be gracious to their opponents when people on the other side do something for which they deserve credit. Our antagonisms have become so deep and bitter that we are reluctant to give an inch to our political adversaries.

This is not good for democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Critical Value of Indigenous Climate Stewardship

As the COP 30 nears, Indigenous-led conservation offers the best hope to protect the Amazon rainforest and stabilize the global climate system.

Getty Images, photography by Ulrich Hollmann

The Critical Value of Indigenous Climate Stewardship

In August, I traveled by bus, small plane, and canoe to the sacred headwaters of the Amazon, in Ecuador. It’s a place with very few roads, yet like many areas in the rainforest, foreign business interests have made contact with its peoples and in just the last decade have rapidly changed the landscape, scarring it with mines or clearcutting for cattle ranching.

The Amazon Rainforest is rightly called the “lungs of the planet.” It stores approximately 56.8 billion metric tons of carbon, equivalent to nearly twice the world’s yearly carbon emissions. With more than 2,500 tree species that account for roughly one-third of all tropical trees on earth, the Amazon stores the equivalent to 10–15 years of all global fossil fuel emissions. The "flying rivers" generated by the forest affect precipitation patterns in the United States, as well our food supply chains, and scientists are warning that in the face of accelerating climate change, deforestation, drought, and fire, the Amazon stands at a perilous tipping point.

Keep ReadingShow less