The decision had been in the hands of the President for days, who declared in Truth: "The regime will never be able to have a nuclear weapon. This operation is to protect the American people from the threats of Tehran, which has attempted to rebuild its nuclear program and was developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States. We will strike the regime's military targets, destroy their missiles, flatten their weapons production facilities, and annihilate their naval fleet."
Preparations had been underway for weeks. The United States had moved a significant amount of military forces "within an appropriate distance" to enable a long-term intervention.
The military buildup continued even as talks between Washington and Tehran were underway: many American officials remained skeptical about the possibility of an agreement. Trump demanded an end to the nuclear program, including a ban on uranium enrichment; Israel also insisted on dismantling Iran's missile arsenal.
Israel had been preparing for weeks for a possible conflict, just eight months after the 12-day war when the US and Israel struck Iranian military and nuclear facilities.
The American deployment was large: dozens of fighter jets and air-to-air tankers, two aircraft carrier strike groups, the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford, accompanied by cruisers, destroyers, and submarines.
Until a few weeks ago, the Pentagon did not consider itself fully prepared to support Trump's threats: 30-40 thousand American soldiers at eight bases had insufficient air defense. Last month, Patriot and THAAD systems were transferred to intercept Iranian missiles, along with F-35, F-22, F-16 aircraft and strategic bombers on standby.
1- Unique moment to reshape the Middle East. Iran is at its weakest point since the 1979 revolution, following recent protests, the 12-day war with Israel, and the weakening of its network of proxies (such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis). A decisive campaign could unleash American regional initiatives, from integration through the Abraham Accords to rapprochement with the West of countries like Lebanon and Iraq.
2- The brutal crackdown on protesters has escalated tensions . The casualty figures are debatable, but the reports are shocking. Trump's promise to "come to the aid" of the Iranian people, according to this analysis, should be translated into concrete action.
3- The credibility dilemma . Inaction would risk comparisons to Barack Obama's "red line" in Syria in 2013, when there was no military response after the Assad regime used chemical weapons. A withdrawal could be interpreted by Tehran as weakness.
4- Economic interests. A new regime could reintegrate Iran's vast energy reserves (the world's second largest for gas and third largest for oil) into Western markets. This would also affect China's energy supplies and global strategic balances.
5- Direct American influence on Iran's future. Internal systemic failures, hyperinflation, water shortages, corruption, suggest a deep weakening of the regime. An active approach would allow Washington to influence the transition, while avoiding Russia and China exploiting the vacuum.
6- The ongoing nuclear threat. The June attacks on nuclear facilities may have only delayed the program by a few months. Trump has repeatedly stated that he will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, according to this logic, the action was necessary./ Corriere della Sera