Nuclear weapons against Iran at the center of the discussion

The U.S. president rejects all conclusions suggesting that Iran is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. Initially, the IAEA stated that Tehran did not accelerate its nuclear program when Israel launched an attack on Iran. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reached the same conclusion. However, Trump rejects all of these assessments. He previously responded to Gabbard’s statement by saying simply that “she is mistaken.” The 48-hour window that was said to be decisive in the conflict has already passed, but one day remains until the June 22 date previously estimated by Bloomberg.

All attention is now focused on Iran’s deep underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow. Currently, the most significant developments in the conflict center around this plant. Fox News, citing a White House source, reported that the United States has not ruled out the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s fortified nuclear facility at Fordow. According to the source, the U.S. military does not doubt the effectiveness of bunker-busting bombs and believes they could destroy the plant. Earlier, The Guardian reported that the Fordow facility could only be destroyed by a tactical nuclear strike. Axios also reported that Trump doubts whether the 13.6-ton GBU-57 bunker-busting bomb can reliably destroy the underground facility, which lies 90 meters deep.

The United Kingdom’s Institute of Military Services also published a report on the issue, stating that Israel aims to cripple Iran’s nuclear program by striking military sites, including several nuclear facilities, but that doing so will not be easy. The Fordow plant is believed to be located even deeper than other sites. While its exact depth is unclear, estimates place it at 80 to 90 meters underground. The report says the largest U.S. bomb, the GBU-57, is capable of penetrating only 60 meters, falling short of the depth required to destroy Fordow. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency has emphasized that to neutralize the Fordow site, it would first be necessary to soften the ground with conventional bombs, then drop a nuclear device from a bomber.

Trump is hesitating

On June 19, White House press secretary Caroline Levitt announced that President Donald Trump will decide whether to strike Iran within the next two weeks. Trump has thus delayed a potential attack and military intervention that had been expected to launch within hours. He now faces a difficult dilemma. Attacking Iran may not align with Trump’s personal ambitions, but he may be pressured into it by pro-Israel factions. Some suggest he is being pushed to repeat the mistakes of George W. Bush. Since entering politics in 2016, Trump has frequently argued that the biggest U.S. mistakes were the invasions of Iraq and the toppling of Libya’s government. Despite this, he is now under heavy pressure from the pro-Israel lobby to take action against Iran.

Media reports indicate that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is a key figure behind this push and one of the main proponents of a strike on Iran. Trump, who favors economic development and expanding investment flows, is likely not eager to launch an attack. Several elements of Iran’s potential retaliation are already known. One option would be to target U.S. military bases in the Middle East. Iran’s Amed, Sijjil, and Fatah missiles—ranging from 1,400 to 2,000 kilometers and capable of bypassing the Iron Dome—can reach Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, where many U.S. bases are located. Such a strike could ignite a full-scale war and even hint at a broader global conflict. This risk is particularly problematic for Trump, who returned from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar just six weeks ago with investment agreements worth nearly \$3.5 trillion. Any escalation in the Middle East could render these deals worthless.

In addition, the U.S. experience in Iraq, Libya, and Syria remains cautionary. The power vacuum left in Iraq and Syria was exploited by terrorists, causing prolonged instability. The United States spent \$1.4 trillion fighting al-Qaeda, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein came at a steep cost. When intervention began in Iraq and Syria, each country had a population of about 25–30 million; today, Iran’s population exceeds 90 million. A coup or chaos there could create severe consequences. Moreover, when dealing with Persians—who are historically known for resilience and strong national identity—the situation becomes even more complex. The Middle East could once again become a significant challenge not just for the United States, but for the entire world.