Washington D.C.  – In a high-stakes geopolitical drama, U.S. President Donald Trump has indicated a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is an option, stating he "could, or could not" proceed. This declaration, made at the White House, serves as a clear warning to Tehran, signaling Washington's readiness for immediate action while also weighing the profound implications of such a move. Currently, U.S. forces are reportedly poised, awaiting the President's final command.

President Trump emphasized his disinclination for conflict, but quickly added, "If it's a choice between a fight and Iran having a nuclear weapon, I'll do what has to be done." When questioned about the potential for the Iranian regime's collapse, he responded, "Of course. Anything can happen." He asserted that his "patience has run out" with Iran, indicating a "final ultimatum" has been issued.

Despite the aggressive rhetoric, Trump has not entirely ruled out negotiations with Iran. He expressed a desire to make a "final decision at the last second," acknowledging the fluidity of war. This comes after a Wall Street Journal report claimed Trump had approved an attack plan the previous day but held off on the final order, opting to observe if Iran would abandon its nuclear weapons development.

 
Escalation and Retaliation in the Region

While the U.S. deliberates, Israel has intensified its actions. Despite warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Israeli military reportedly conducted an airstrike on Iran's Arak heavy water reactor nuclear facility this morning. Fortunately, the facility was already empty, preventing any radioactive leakage. Iran retaliated swiftly, launching over 20 missiles towards Israel. Agence France-Presse reported intense explosions in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with hospitals in southern Israel reportedly sustaining damage.

 
The Crossroads: Bunker Busters or Diplomacy

President Trump finds himself at a critical juncture, torn between military intervention with "bunker buster" bombs and diplomatic engagement. A final decision is expected within days, with Bloomberg, citing sources, suggesting a potential U.S. military intervention could occur as early as this weekend.

 
Doubts and Dire Consequences

Trump's hesitation stems from the immense potential costs of an attack and a lack of certainty regarding the effectiveness of bunker busters in completely neutralizing Iran's Fordow nuclear facility. The Guardian reported that some within the U.S. Department of Defense believe bunker busters might be insufficient, with tactical nuclear weapons being the only means to completely destroy Fordow. Iran has threatened "retaliation wherever there are necessary targets" should the U.S. attack, raising concerns not only of strikes against U.S. military personnel but also potential terror attacks against American civilians. Elly Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) warned CNN that a U.S. attack on Iran would "open a Pandora's Box," potentially consuming the remainder of Trump's presidency in conflict.

Conversely, some analysts suggest that an attack might only reinforce Iran's resolve to acquire nuclear weapons. Gary Samore, former White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction during the Obama administration, told The New York Times that if the Fordow facility remains intact after this conflict, "it won't be long before this war starts again." The strategic implications for regional stability, global oil markets, and the broader international non-proliferation regime are profound, making Trump's impending decision one of the most critical of his presidency.