As Tensions with Iran Rise, President Trump Faces the Crucial Challenge of Finding a Resolution.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump of the United States indicated he would decide on military action against Iran within two weeks. Remarkably, that decision came down in just two days.

The U.S. has now directly engaged with Iran, and this raises a critical question for President Trump: how will this conflict reach a conclusion? Will Iran accept this blow and pursue peace by halting its nuclear weapons development and uranium enrichment? Or will it respond aggressively, targeting U.S. interests throughout the Middle East by leveraging groups like Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and various militias in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen?

The B-2 ‘Spirit’ Stealth Bomber played a pivotal role in these U.S. strikes.

The Iranian regime now finds itself facing an existential crisis, regardless of the path it chooses. Last night, as the East Coast of America settled down, the early hours in Iran saw B2 bombers striking at three Iranian nuclear facilities located at Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan.

Each bomber was equipped with two Massive Penetrator Ordnance bombs—known as “Bunker Busters,” specifically designed for operations like this one. In fact, their deployment here marks the first instance of their use outside a practice range, and uncertainty remains about their effectiveness.

Each of these extraordinary devices, weighing in at 13 tons, is engineered to burrow approximately 70 meters underground before detonating, a stark contrast to the more typical bombs carried by aircraft, which weigh between 230 kg to one ton. The B2 is capable of transporting two bunker busters at a time.

Reports suggest that around 20 to 30 of these devices have been manufactured, and a series of them may need to be deployed to successfully neutralize a deeply buried facility such as Fordow.

President Trump proudly proclaimed this operation a “spectacular military success,” asserting in a televised address from the White House that Iran’s “key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” He emphasized, “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”

In his remarks, the President seemed to refer to the proxy attacks against U.S. interests that are believed to have been conducted under Iranian orders. “For 40 years, Iran has been chanting ‘Death to America, Death to Israel.’ They have harmed our people, with roadside bombs being their specialty. Over 1,000 American lives have been lost, and hundreds of thousands around the world have died due to their animosity, spearheaded by their general Qasem Soleimani,” he stated, underlining that he would not tolerate such actions.

The mention of Soleimani, who was assassinated in a U.S. operation ordered by Trump in 2020, carries implications that high-ranking regime officials could be targeted should similar attacks on U.S. personnel occur.

The overall tone of the address conveyed a firm ultimatum from a coalition of uncompromising leaders.

Standing alongside Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Trump spoke from a location historically significant as the venue where President Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden. He expressed gratitude toward Israel, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, describing their cooperative efforts as “like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we have significantly mitigated this serious threat to Israel.”

He acknowledged the aircrew of the B2 bombers, expressing hope that their services would not be needed for further operations against Iran, emphasizing again the necessity for Iran to engage in negotiations about its nuclear program. “There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” he said. “Many targets remain. Last night’s operation was the most challenging, but if peace eludes us, we can strike those other targets with precision, speed, and skill in a matter of minutes.”

Trump emphasized, “No military in the world could have accomplished what we did tonight, not even close.”

This presents a profound dilemma for the Iranian government: to preserve what remains by acquiescing to Trump’s demands or to dig in for a prolonged conflict, fully aware that the U.S. and Israeli forces maintain dominance in the skies and can strike whenever they choose.

However, as history has shown, even relentless bombing campaigns eventually run out of targets. Drawing a parallel to NATO’s offensive against Serbia, one must consider—what happens when the conflict escalates? The Serbs eventually capitulated, unwilling to continue enduring severe losses. Yet, Iran may not surrender so easily. The regime has historically prioritized ideological commitments over the well-being of its populace, making it more resilient than one might expect.

Another notable concern lies within: the 1979 revolution that ousted one unpopular regime could also serve as a precedent for the overthrow of the current leadership if it fails to retain public support. The extent of Israeli intelligence networks infiltrating Iranian society, as evidenced by recent operations against Hezbollah and the Assad regime, signifies the presence of disillusioned Iranians in critical positions.

On his recent visit to the Gulf States, Trump contrasted the vibrant cities of Dubai and Kuwait with the more somber, oppressive atmosphere within Iran, where oil wealth has fueled proxy wars instead of improving local living conditions. He speculated on how different Iran’s future might be if its leaders opted for collaboration rather than confrontation in a region poised for a renaissance.

In both internal and external arenas, danger looms over the Iranian regime. While calls for regime change may not be an explicit goal of U.S. actions, some foreign policy experts suggest it could emerge as an unintended consequence of efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

This, of course, does not imply an immediate shift. The fear surrounding the potential assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei centers on the possibility of a more nationalistic and repressive military regime taking his place, or worse, a dissolution into ethnic conflict similar to what Iraq has experienced.

At this pivotal moment, with geopolitics stretching from Turkey to Afghanistan, Iran faces a critical juncture. If the regime agrees to a peace deal with Trump that involves abandoning its nuclear ambitions, it risks appearing weak internally. The ramifications could include emboldened critics aiming to dismantle the Islamic Republic—a development that could play out in various ways.

Should the regime show signs of weakness, what implications would that hold for Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and how might Gulf Arab states respond? The geopolitical landscape is fraught with uncertainty, leaving us in a transitional phase between action and reaction. Significant changes have occurred—now the question remains: what will happen next?

Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring.