Stop and watch the market bleed

The United States has decided to bomb Iran. There is a real risk of international escalation. Here is what is happening, why Trump made this decision, and what the risks are.

History seems to repeat itself, and this time the risk of escalation is dangerously real: Donald Trump has decided to bomb Iran.

Without Congress's approval, the President of the United States has decided to side with Israel and the genocidal Benjamin Netanyahu in his personal war against Iran. These are dark hours for the Middle East and the rest of the international community: betraying his anti-interventionist policy, Trump has decided to continue a mission that endangers regional and international security.

History seems to repeat itself, and this time the risk of escalation is dangerously real: Donald Trump has decided to bomb Iran.

Without Congress's approval, the President of the United States has decided to side with Israel and the genocidal Benjamin Netanyahu in his personal war against Iran. These are dark hours for the Middle East and the rest of the international community: betraying his anti-interventionist policy, Trump has decided to continue a mission that endangers regional and international security.

The decision to bomb Iran, in fact, comes in an already highly unstable context. Trump, according to reports from the New Yorker, ordered American bombers to destroy three key nuclear sites. Just before 8:00 PM, the American president intervened on Truth Social to announce the news:

We have successfully completed our attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All aircraft are now out of Iranian airspace. A full load of bombs was dropped on the main site, Fordow. All aircraft are on their way back safely.

In a subsequent televised address at 10:00 PM, the president stated that the operation was a 'spectacular military success.' A decision strongly criticized by institutions, citizens, and especially by geopolitical experts: Karim Sadjadpour, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an analyst at the International Crisis Group in Tehran from 2003 to 2005, warns the international community. In the face of such a scenario, it is important to understand the situation, why Trump decided to support Netanyahu, and what the possible risks are on a regional and international scale: here’s everything you need to know about it.

Donald Trump has decided to bomb Iran: here’s why

Trump's decision strongly contradicts his disengagement policy. Just last month, the American president flew to Saudi Arabia, delivering a strongly critical speech against military interventions and nation-building efforts in the Middle East: 'In the end, the so-called nation-builders have destroyed many more nations than they have built. And the interventionists intervened in complex societies they didn't even understand.'

And so we must ask ourselves: what has changed to push Trump to drop bombs on Iran, leveling three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan?

The official reasons provided by Trump to justify the U.S. attack on Iran mirror those provided by Israel: the goal would be to slow down Tehran's nuclear program, deemed an imminent threat. At this point, however, another question should be asked: 'Will the Israelis or Americans ever present concrete and convincing evidence of the Iranian nuclear threat?' Or will we risk another 2003 with the attack on Kabul based on false information? As researcher Sadjadpour explains: 'Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that the threat was imminent and acted accordingly, yet did not provide the public with clear evidence that Iran was close to obtaining a nuclear weapon.'

Behind Trump's choice, therefore, lies something else: the need to strengthen his position and not appear weak before the international community. After the frustration of seeing the nuclear deal with Tehran fail, the president would have yielded to Benjamin Netanyahu's relentless pressure, Sadjadpour continues.

Much of what we are doing now as a nation is not a reflection of national deliberation or national interest. It is the impulse of one man. Trump came to power believing that his mere presence would resolve global conflicts in twenty-four hours: Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine. When Trump realized he was not succeeding, he felt an urgent need to reach a solution in Iran. The combination of Netanyahu's tenacity and Khamenei's challenge has transformed Trump from a self-proclaimed peacemaker into a warmonger.

From the Nixon model to the Bush model, it was a moment: Trump decided last night, June 21, 2025, to drop a 13,000-kilogram bomb, effectively carrying out an illegitimate attack, as it did not have Congress's approval, nor was it executed after an international mandate. And the United States will soon have to reckon with the weight of this decision: looking back, they will have to ask themselves whether the attack prevented an Iranian bomb or perhaps ensured one.

READ ALSO

Iran-Israel War, all the lies we are being told

WAR ON IRAN: IS THE MIDDLE EAST AT WAR AGAIN?

The Middle East is once again on the brink of a crisis. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the war in Syria, and the chaos in Libya, this new front risks worsening an already explosive situation.

Every 'mission for democracy' has turned out to be a geopolitical boomerang, leaving space for extremist groups, civil wars, and ungovernability. Trump, while making anti-interventionist rhetoric one of his battle horses, ended up replicating the same logic as George W. Bush: using force to solve complex problems while ignoring international law.

The Middle East is once again in a precarious situation, and American responsibility is evident. Trump's action may have shattered the regional balances painstakingly maintained in recent years. And while Israel cheers, Europe remains silent, and Russia watches with hostility, the world wonders: where is this new war leading us?

As Sadjadpour explains, Iran finds itself in a unique situation. It is plausible that the Revolutionary Guards commanders look to the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, pressing for a direct intervention against the U.S. The real question now is how Iran will respond. 'If the ayatollah [Ali Khamenei] responds weakly, he loses face,' Sadjadpour said. 'If he responds too harshly, he might lose his head.' Khamenei is 86 years old and has been in power since 1989; he is one of the longest-serving dictators in the world and now faces a choice: lead a war against the United States, a world superpower, and against Israel, the largest military power in the region.

But, as we have learned too often in history, military success does not always translate into political success: now the entire Middle Eastern balance is at stake. The expert recalls that more than half of the authoritarian regimes that fell after foreign interventions did not become democratic. A possible regime change in Iran might not benefit civil liberties but hand power to more radical factions like the Revolutionary Guards. In this scenario, the alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv could backfire on Iranian civilians and destabilize an entire continent once again.

READ ALSO

Do we risk a third world war after Israel's attack on Iran?

UNITED STATES ATTACK IRAN: WHAT ARE THE RISKS NOW?

The Middle East is a powder keg ready to explode. The fate of a potential global conflict currently depends on the Iranian reaction in these hours: will they attack U.S. embassies, continue bombing only Israel in an attempt to keep the United States out of the conflict, more than they already are? Or will they close the Strait of Hormuz? Each of these responses could generate a spiral of uncontrolled violence.

One thing is certain: if Khamenei's theocracy responds forcefully, it risks dragging regional powers like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt into the conflict; not only could Trump's intervention trigger a Russian or Chinese reaction to defend their energy and geopolitical interests.

But the biggest danger is a return to the logic of blocs. If the crisis escalates, great powers could openly take sides, with NATO urged to intervene and Moscow ready to support Tehran. In that case, the specter of a third world war would no longer be a remote hypothesis but a concrete possibility, the shadow of which is dangerously lengthening over the entire Middle East. And while the world holds its breath, Palestinian and Iranian children continue to lose their lives under the watchful eyes of a West that stands by and watches. A West that has always wanted to present itself as the 'savior' of the Middle East but has irreparably dragged it into chaos and flames.