The bunker-busting strike by United States will only harden the resolve of many in Iran to push for nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the two countries may fall into a pattern of “attack-retaliate-attack,” which could develop into one of the biggest failures in human history.
(Photo: REUTERS/Majid Asgaripour/WANA 2; Iranian Leader's Press Office - Handout)
In the early morning of June 22 in Iran, the United States used B-2 strategic bombers to drop GBU-57 giant bunker busters, known as the “king of bombs,” on nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. President Donald Trump said on social media that the U.S. strike was “very successful.” Since the United States has always been Israel’s main external supporter, the Trump administration’s policy and position on the Iranian nuclear issue have become the key for determining the final direction of the regional situation. But I believe that Trump faces a series of deadly traps and that it’s too early to discuss whether the attack was “successful” or not.
First, there is the alliance trap by Israel. Although there is a so-called special relationship between the United States and Israel, their interests on the Iranian issue are not consistent. For the U.S., maintaining its hegemony in the Gulf region is a core interest. To this end, it needs to maintain the security of its regional allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, and also needs to reach a necessary reconciliation with Iran to reduce hostility and risks.
Israel’s ultimate goal against Iran is to prevent it from becoming a normal regional power. After the United States forced regime change in Iraq in 2003, Iran has become the only country in the region that remains openly hostile to Israel. Iran has also supported some anti-Israel resistance movements, such as those of Hamas and Hezbollah. In addition, compared with other regional countries, Iran’s territory, population and natural resources are far greater than Israel’s. It is a country with a strong sense of historical pride and a strong majority ethnic group, and it has great potential to become a medium-sized power. Therefore, Israel has strongly opposed any negotiations between Iran and the United States, fearing that Iran would acquire breathing space.
Israel has thus tried to drag the United States into a strategic confrontation with Iran by any means — even war. It wants to force the Trump administration to choose between war and peace in the interest of Israel, not United States.
Second is the political trap of regime change in Iran. Although Israel’s earlier bombing of targets in Iran achieved some tactical results, it did not achieve any strategic goals. Not only did it fail to obliterate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, it also failed to force Iran to surrender or rebuild its regional deterrence. Instead, it led to a fierce counterattack from Iran. Facing a dilemma, Israel could only turn to the United States for support in implementing regime change in Iran.
Yet, whether the question is planning the assassination of Iran’s top leader or changing the regime, Israel may not satisfy the strategic expectations of the United States but only bring more unexpected consequences. On one hand, an assassination and indiscriminate bombing will only unite the Iranian people in their hate for the United States and strengthen the power of hard-liners in Iran, which will make future negotiations and reconciliation between the United States and Iran more difficult. On the other hand, there is no powerful opposition party in Iran that can fully cooperate with the Americans, and most of the Iranian opposition forces in exile abroad have no base of support in their country. So, if the Trump administration wants to support a pro-Western regime in Iran, it must invest huge strategic resources. This is obviously contrary to Trump’s policy of withdrawing from the Middle East to serve his MAGA agenda.
More important, once the leaders of the current Iranian regime are eliminated, the country may become leaderless, and it cannot be ruled out that even more radical anti-American political forces will emerge. By then, even if the United States wanted to negotiate with Iran again, it may not be able to find a credible leader with the authority to represent all factions.
Finally, there is the military trap in the Iranian nuclear issue. There are two solutions: One is diplomatic; the other is military. Diplomatic means were once successful. For example, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in 2015. However, Trump unilaterally tore up the agreement in 2018. After he returned to power, the United States and Iran began to negotiate again, but progress was not as smooth as expected.
In any case, Israel has never been an ideal partner on the Iranian nuclear issue, as Israel itself remains a nuclear power not yet recognized by the NPT. It is not even a signatory to the treaty. Israel’s military attack has not only interrupted the negotiations between the United States and Iran but also destroyed any grain of trust the Iranians may have had for the Americans. In addition, coupled with the rapid rise of anti-American and vengeful sentiments in Iran, it is difficult for both sides to make the concessions expected by the other side in their negotiations, which renders prospects for progress through diplomacy very bleak.
Israel’s earlier military strikes seriously damaged Iran’s nuclear program but fell far short of eliminating its nuclear enrichment capabilities, because most of key parts of the country’s nuclear program are located in underground bunkers or mountain tunnels. Most experts doubt that the United States can obliterate Iran’s nuclear facilities through a one-time bombing. Even if the U.S. uses GBU-57 bunker busters to wreck the underground facilities, it cannot eliminate the relevant knowledge and technical capabilities that Iranian possesses. As long as Iran has the determination, it will remain capable of resuming its nuclear program. Repeated bombings can only prolong the armed conflict between the two sides.
Of course, that could also be viewed as a kind of “success” by Israel and the United States. It would slow the development of Iran’s nuclear program and break the previous red line. However, this sort of success will not be commendable in the eyes of the international community. It will be interpreted as just another case of the United States and Israel bullying a developing country in the name of non-proliferation. To most developing countries, Iran’s fate seems no different from that of Libya or Iraq before it. All of them met their demise because they cooperated with the West on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation without actually possessing nuclear weapons.
In light of President Trump’s pro-Israel stance and decision-making style, it is no surprise that the United States launched a direct military strike. However, the bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities may not be the final outcome. The direct involvement of the United States will harden the resolve of many in Iran, and direct retaliatory attacks on American targets cannot be ruled out. The United States and Iran may fall into a vicious cycle of violence — a pattern of “attack-retaliation-attack” — which may not be what Trump wants. On the other hand, if the Iranians believe that the United States is not sincere in peace talks, they may become so desperate to survive in humiliation and despair that they will push toward nuclear weapons at all costs. If that is the case, the military “success” of the United States and Israel could develop into one of the greatest failures in human history.
