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

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate
Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.
Getty Images, Khanchit Khirisutchalual

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate

History of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Signed into U.S. law in 1970, NEPA is considered the “Magna Carta” of environmental law. It requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of major construction projects such as airports, highways, federal buildings, or projects constructed on federally owned land before construction. To fulfill the NEPA requirements, federal agencies are required to complete a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any actions with environmental impact. The completed EIS is an extensive written report from federal agencies that includes a summary of the environmental effects of the proposed project, a purpose statement, potential alternatives, and an overview of the affected environment.

Before a final EIS can be published, agencies must publish a draft EIS for a public review and comment period of 45 days. The final EIS must fully address substantive comments from the review period to be considered complete. Major projects with a low likelihood of pronounced environmental impact can bypass the NEPA process if granted a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). If the project’s impact on the environment is uncertain, agencies are required to prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the need for an EIS.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Parallel Twin Lives of Democracy

It is a striking paradox of contemporary American life: The country appears to be bitterly divided, yet at the same time it is in deep internal agreement.

Survey after survey show broad consensus on issues that once split the nation: Same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, public smoking bans, marijuana legalization, background checks for gun ownership, even paid parental leave. Many of these were once thought irreconcilable, but today they register supermajority support. Yet at the same time, partisanship has become the most toxic line of fracture in American identity. As political philosopher Robert Talisse has observed, parents who would welcome a child marrying across lines of faith or ethnicity recoil at the prospect of marriage across ideological lines. The left and right increasingly define one another not as fellow citizens who happen to disagree, but as existential threats.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Democratic Party's American Dream Problem — And Opportunity

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani holds a campaign event with the healthcare worker's union on September 24, 2025 outside of St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx borough of New York City.

(Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

The Democratic Party's American Dream Problem — And Opportunity

Why have so many rank-and-file Democrats found Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for New York mayor so captivating – despite all the naysaying from the party’s establishment? Because his message may be the first from a Democrat to counter decades of Republican dominance over a narrative central to our nation: the American Dream.

What the American Dream tells us is that anything is possible in America, that if you work hard, nothing can stop you, and you will succeed. It’s a rags-to-riches story, reminiscent of Horatio Alger and Rocky Balboa, and the classic tale of immigrants arriving with nothing and sacrificing everything to create a better life for themselves and their families.

Keep ReadingShow less
The New Face of US Interventionism: Economic Warfare in Brazil

USA Brazil tariffs

AI generated

The New Face of US Interventionism: Economic Warfare in Brazil

President Donald J. Trump has threatened to impose a new round of tariffs and sanctions against Brazil after Brazil’s Supreme Court sentenced the former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison for attempting a coup — an act of political retaliation that should raise alarm bells across the globe.

President Trump’s threat follows the earlier imposition of a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods and Magnitsky sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over Bolsonaro’s trial. These measures are designed to punish Brazil’s judiciary for daring to prosecute Bolsonaro, who plotted to overturn the 2022 elections and assassinate then-president-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Keep ReadingShow less