From sanctions on sabotage and cyberattacks to diplomacy, the US has used every “weapon” for 20 years to slow down Iran’s long course to acquire nuclear weapons.

On Sunday morning, President Donald Trump fled to the last weapon: the raw military force that his four predecessors had deliberately avoided, fearing to sink the United States to war in the Middle East.

For Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of an enemy country is the largest – and possibly the most dangerous – risk of his second term, the New York Times emphasizes in their analysis.

The US president bets that the United States can repel any retaliation ordered by Iran’s leadership against more than 40,000 US troops scattered across the area. Everyone is in the range of Tehran’s missile arsenal, even after eight days of uninterrupted attacks by Israel. It also bets that it can prevent an extremely weakened Iran from using its well -known techniques – terrorism, hostage and cyberattacks – as a more indirect form of attack to avenge.

Most importantly, the analysis of the New York Times is that it bets that it has destroyed Iran’s chances of rebuilding its nuclear program in the future.

This is an ambitious goal as Iran had made it clear that, in the event of an attack, it will leave the Treaty on Nuclear Weapons and will transfer its huge underground program. That is why Trump paid so much attention to the destruction of Fordo where Iran produced almost all the fuel of almost martial quality that was more concerned about the United States and their allies.

‘It’s not war’

The president’s associates may have talked about the complexity of the business, but they emphasized, speaking to their European partners, that “it is not a declaration of war”.

The White House speaks of precautionary energy with the aim of neutralizing a threat rather than the Iranian regime, but the Iranians will not perceive it in the same way. The US is talking about the “bully of the Middle East” that now must accept peace, “otherwise there will be a tragedy for Iran much greater than we have seen in the last eight days.”

In essence, Trump threatened to broaden his military cooperation with Israel. Initially, the United States was distancing themselves from the Israeli operation, but Trump quickly changed their course and reportedly referred to the United States’ ability to kill Iran’s 86 -year -old senior leader, Ayatollah Ali Hameni, whenever they wish.

The moment is favorable: After October 7, 2023, Iran suddenly deprived its “proxies”, Hamas and Hezbollah, his closest ally, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, was forced to leave the country, and Russia, them after the Israeli attack.

Thus, the New York Times continues, the nuclear program remained Iran’s only defense.

Historians of the future will probably wonder if the US, their allies or the Iranians could have acted differently – but also if Trump’s risk had performed.

If Iran fails to respond, if Ayatollah’s power is weakened or if the country abandons its long -term nuclear ambitions, Trump would undoubtedly argue that he was only willing to use the US military force to achieve a goal.

But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could convey their knowledge, and the country could follow the path opened by North Korea in a race for the construction of a nuclear bomb.

Iran may conclude that this is the only way to keep the biggest, hostile forces away and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out a business like Sunday’s dawn.