11 Days in June: Trump’s Path to ‘Yes’ on Bombing Iran
Over 11 days, President Trump considered military action against Iran, leading to U.S. strikes that marked a significant escalation in foreign policy. The operation raised risks of deeper conflict in the Middle East following intense military exchanges between Israel and Iran. Trump alternated between diplomatic outreach and aggressive military posturing, ultimately launching attacks that sparked international concern.
In a dramatic series of events over just 11 days, President Donald Trump found himself navigating one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions in recent memory: whether to join Israel’s military strikes against Iran. This question, which ignited intense speculation worldwide, culminated in a coordinated attack involving American bombers, fighter jets, and submarines that struck Iranian targets with missiles and bombs. The stakes are exceptionally high, reflecting fears of renewed conflicts in the Middle East without a clear plan moving forward.
The situation began to escalate on June 11, when families of U.S. troops started leaving the Middle East, signaling potential conflict. “They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we’ll see what happens,” Trump commented while attending a theater event. The timing raised questions about whether Israel was finally going through with threats to target Iran’s nuclear program or if this maneuver was a tactic to push for negotiations.
By June 12, the tension turned explosive. Trump hinted that an Israeli attack was imminent, and shortly after, Tehran was rocked by air strikes. These coordinated attacks, which Israel later described as a “targeted military operation,” took out several top military leaders and significant nuclear sites. Although Trump spoke about diplomatic aims, the tone quickly shifted as Iran’s retaliation became apparent.
On June 13, amidst increasing aggression, Trump expressed admiration for Israel’s military might, stating, “The United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR.” However, he still urged Iran to reach a deal. Just a day later, after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump’s stance shifted again as the U.S. canceled diplomatic discussions set to further address the situation.
Trump continued to bolster his image as a peacemaker on June 15, stressing the importance of negotiations to both Israel and Iran. Reports indicated that Israel’s military operations had already claimed 224 lives in Iran, complicating any potential diplomatic solutions. After a quick trip to Canada for the G7 summit, Trump faced mounting pressure back home to reassess the conflict.
By June 16, Israel reported achieving aerial dominance over Iran, further increasing the intensity of missile strikes on important military infrastructure. As the advancements weakened Iran’s capabilities, questions about the effectiveness of more traditional military methods surfaced, especially concerning deeper underground nuclear sites.
On June 17, Trump took a firmer stance declaring Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” was the only acceptable outcome. His frustration with negotiations and intelligence assessments increased, leading him to disregard U.S. spies’ reports claiming Iran hadn’t progressed toward developing a nuclear weapon. As cryptic as ever, Trump stated, “Nobody knows what I’m going to do,” while wrestling with whether or not to escalate military actions further.
The decision-making continued through June 19, with the administration hinting at timelines for military involvement that had observers skeptical given Trump’s habit of proposing immediate actions that fizzled out. Later that week, as Trump convened national security meetings and attended fundraisers, the military was ultimately preparing for action.
The operation commenced in the early hours of June 21, with U.S. B-2 bombers taking off from Missouri to strike Iran. Within hours, over two dozen Tomahawk missiles had been launched at Iranian military targets. Trump announced the strike as a “very successful attack,” yet cautioned Iran against retaliation, stating, “There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran.” This situation illustrates the precarious balance of power in the region and the unpredictable nature of Trump’s foreign policy execution.
In summary, Trump’s handling of the Iran situation over these 11 days reflects a complex interplay of military readiness, diplomatic overtures, and the heightened risk of conflict. As he navigated through shifting positions and demands on social media, the reality of military action became increasingly evident, leaving questions about the long-term implications for U.S. foreign policy and Middle Eastern stability.
Original Source: apnews.com
