Trump's Iran trap

A tactical success may force the president into choices he desperately wants to avoid

The deception was flawless. While Iranian negotiators prepared for nuclear talks in Geneva, believing Trump's public deadline gave them "two weeks" to cut a deal, six B-2 bombers were already racing toward Iran carrying the most destructive conventional weapons in America's arsenal.

It was, in the words of one Trump adviser speaking to Axios, "a headfake."

By Sunday morning, Trump declared Iran's nuclear facilities "completely and totally obliterated." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called it a "spectacular military success."

The operation was indeed tactically brilliant—seven B-2s flew from Missouri to Iran without landing, dropped fourteen 30,000-pound bunker-busters on Iran's nuclear facilities, and returned home without a scratch. But tactical success may have created a strategic trap that forces Trump into choices he desperately wanted to avoid.

The sobering technical reality is that "obliterating" Iran's nuclear program and totally eliminating it are two very different things. And that gap may force Trump into either a protracted war or explicit regime change—precisely the outcomes his surgical strike was designed to prevent.

Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who negotiated the Obama-era nuclear deal Trump abandoned, offered a blunt assessment on CNN Sunday that directly contradicted administration claims: "For the short term, clearly, the military attack, which was very, very well carried out, for sure, it certainly eliminated, at least for some time, some of the Iranian facilities, but I've seen no indication that it would in any way eliminate the nuclear weapons program."

More troubling, Moniz noted that "it's quite likely that Iran moved all of its highly enriched uranium—400 kilograms—to a safer place, so they probably are still in control of this material that is very, very close to weapons grade." Commercial satellite imagery analyzed by independent experts shows trucks at Isfahan and Fordow apparently sealing tunnel entrances and moving materials in the days before the strikes.

"There were trucks seen in imagery apparently hauling stuff away," says David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security. "One would assume that any enriched uranium stocks were hauled away." Vice President JD Vance acknowledged this reality in an interview on ABC News Sunday, noting that "the 60% enriched uranium may have been moved to hardened, secret places."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine admitted that complete damage assessments would take time. Significantly, the U.S. didn't use bunker-buster bombs at Isfahan, which houses 60 percent of Iran's uranium stockpile underground. Even if the facility at Fordow was devastated, Iran's nuclear program extends far beyond a single site.

At minimum, Iran still possesses the two most critical components of a nuclear weapons program: highly enriched uranium stockpiles and thousands of scientists with bomb-making expertise. As Moniz explained, "If they reconstruct the more powerful centrifuges that they have developed in the last few years, they could enrich that material to weapons grade in pretty short order."

H.R. McMaster, Trump's former National Security Advisor, captured the challenge perfectly: "Bunker busters will not destroy all of Iran's nuclear program. It is almost guaranteed that the Iranians have material and equipment in places we don't know about. The Iranians have had years to hide it away. You can't look under every roof in the country. You can't look in every garage, every basement."

This is where Trump's tactical success could become a strategic problem. By publicly declaring Iran's nuclear capabilities "obliterated" while privately knowing significant capabilities may remain, Trump has created expectations he may not be able to fulfill. If Iran rebuilds quickly - which the technical evidence suggests it may be able to - Trump faces an impossible choice between his credibility and his promises to avoid prolonged Middle East wars.

The President gave Iran what he called the "ultimate ultimatum": completely abandon uranium enrichment or face military action. Iran rejected that demand before the strikes, and nothing suggests devastating their facilities has made them more amenable to complete capitulation.

Now there is a fundamental trust problem that may doom future negotiations. Would Iran re-engage with an administration that used diplomatic talks as operational cover, to bomb its nuclear facilities? Quite the contrary: Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared diplomacy was over: "It's irrelevant to ask Iran to return to diplomacy. It's not time for diplomacy now."

Israel's position only compounds Trump's dilemma. Israeli Defense Minister's declaration that Iran's Supreme Leader "can no longer be allowed to exist" signals Israel’s preference for regime change over negotiated settlements. Netanyahu has achieved tactical victories against Iranian proxies and nuclear facilities, but sustainable security requires either Iranian surrender or Iranian regime replacemen

Trump seems to recognize this trap. His social media post - "It's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be regime change???" - suggests he's at least considering more drastic options than surgical strikes.

Israeli officials celebrate American military action while privately pushing for broader objectives. They understand that damaged nuclear facilities can be rebuilt, but dead ayatollahs cannot be resurrected. From Israel's perspective, anything short of regime change merely delays the nuclear threat. This creates dangerous momentum toward escalation.

Every successful Israeli or American strike increases confidence that military pressure can solve the Iran problem permanently. But it also increases Iranian incentives to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible, creating a race between military degradation and nuclear acceleration.

Iran's response options further constrain Trump's choices. Tehran's parliament voted Sunday to close the Strait of Hormuz, though implementation requires National Security Council approval. Vance told NBC such a move would "suicidal" since "their entire economy runs through the Strait of Hormuz," but desperate regimes often make economically destructive decisions. Should Iran actually close the Strait, Trump could be forced to use further military action to reopen it and restore global oil flows—dragging him deeper into the very regional conflict he sought to avoid

Iran retains other retaliation options: attacking 40,000 American troops stationed throughout the region, unleashing remaining proxy forces, launching cyber attacks, or simply accelerating nuclear development underground. Each option forces Trump to choose between acceptance and escalation.

As Moniz warned: "There's no doubt when we bomb facilities on the whole turf of the country, it's an act of war that can't be denied. Now, I think a major question is... the ball is, in many ways, in Iran's court to determine where things go, because the possibility of an expanding region of war is still there."

Trump believed surgical strikes could solve the Iran nuclear crisis without triggering broader war. Instead, he may have created conditions that make both nuclear acceleration and regional conflict more likely. Iran may retain enough nuclear infrastructure and expertise to rebuild, while facing maximum incentives to do so quickly. Trump's public promises of obliteration clash with private acknowledgments that significant capabilities could have survived.

The President now confronts exactly what he sought to avoid: either accept that Iran will likely acquire nuclear weapons despite his intervention, or commit to the kind of prolonged military campaign or regime change operation he repeatedly promised voters he would not pursue.

This is the trap Trump set for himself through tactical military brilliance and strategic miscalculation. Nuclear programs cannot be bombed away permanently, but credibility once lost is nearly impossible to recover. The next few weeks will determine whether Trump doubles down with expanded military action or accepts that even perfect tactical execution cannot solve complex strategic problems.