Key Points and Summary on Iran – The recent US “bloody nose” strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, while setting the program back by an estimated two years, may have inadvertently trapped the United States in a “forever war.”
-The core dilemma is that Iran remains determined to rebuild its nuclear capabilities, potentially requiring repeated US military action to “mow the grass.”
-While President Trump has touted the recent ceasefire as a major victory, the long-term strategy remains uncertain.
-Future administrations will face the difficult choice of continuing a cycle of limited strikes or pursuing a diplomatic path that has previously failed, all while navigating a shifting political landscape at home.
Are We Entering a Forever War Against Iran?
Bloody nose. Rinse repeat. Bloody nose. Rinse repeat. Is this what we will come to expect in Iran?
Will there be attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure by the United States and Israel in perpetuity?
The historic U.S. bombing of Iranian atomic sites shocked the world for their audacity and seeming effectiveness.
However, Iran could recover and continue to pursue a nuclear device someday, and that might require more bombing missions to throttle these ambitions.
It is difficult to ascertain the complete battle damage assessment status, but it is safe to assume that the attack set the Iranian nuclear program back for around two years, as the Pentagon claims.
That’s the bloody nose I was referring to.
Trump’s Strikes May Not Have Ended Iranian Nuclear Ambitions
But what if it will take another round of strikes after Iran “cleans up” and continues its quest for a nuclear weapon? President Donald Trump is likely game for another set of U.S. bombing runs. Plus, the B-2 Spirit stealth bombers could be joined by the new B-21 Raider for better odds of achieving sheer destruction with improved bunker-busting bombs.
What Happens After Trump Leaves Office?
The next president may not be so enthusiastic about further Iranian attacks. With new leadership in the White House, the pendulum often swings the other way. A different president could be more dovish on Iran and yearn to create more international cooperation or seek to forge a deal to end the country’s nuclear program using diplomatic efforts. This would mean no new strikes and the ability to avoid a forever war.
The opposite could happen. The American people may choose a hawk who would prefer the bombing option regularly.
And that would bring us right back to where we started. Another strike that would give Iran a bloody nose, it could eventually recover from.
The Quest For ‘Forever Peace’
Trump fashions himself a peacemaker and touts his Iran-Israel ceasefire as a way to avoid forever war in the Middle East. However, many presidents have advertised triumphant agreements toward peace that have ultimately failed. This ceasefire may not hold, and the United States could be forced to intervene militarily again. Trump is optimistic that peace can hold.
“I think the ceasefire is unlimited. It’s going to go forever,” Trump told NBC News on June 23, vowing that Israel and Iran will never “be shooting at each other again.”
That statement is evidence of a deft use of armed diplomacy by Trump. His efforts at negotiations are backed up by the use of force, giving the United States the upper hand when it comes to peacemaking— at least for now.
Time to ‘Mow the Grass’ Again on Iran?
Trump would rather not have to “mow the grass” in Iran again with more strikes. Then he would have to admit and explain that the nuclear sites were not completely obliterated, as he and his national security team have assured us.
However, Trump is known for changing his mind under the guise of strategic ambiguity. The administration claims that it pursues “peace through strength” as its mantra, a handy bumper sticker phrase that many Americans agree with. Nevertheless, peace in the Middle East has been the quest of presidents for decades, and these efforts have never seemed to bear fruit.
As it stands now, Trump is basking in the glow. Iran gave only a half-hearted attempt at vengeance, sending a soft round of missiles at an American air base in Qatar that had no lasting effect.
The Iranians have vowed to never give up their nuclear program, but it appears it won’t be in business anytime soon. Don’t underestimate Iranian resolve when it comes to pursuing an atomic device, though. They have overcome roadblocks before, and the uranium enrichment always seems to continue.
This doesn’t mean another U.S. air strike would come naturally. Most would see additional attacks as a failed policy that depends too much on the military option instead of diplomacy. No one wants American boots on the ground fighting a kinetic force-on-force battle against Iran. That’s why the strikes were limited to only nuclear infrastructure targets without human casualties.
Hawks Versus Doves Regarding Middle East Policy
What if they are needed again, and the battle damage assessment finds more evidence of a surviving nuclear program in Iran? The most dovish member of the administration, Vice President JD Vance, would not likely support another attack. Secretary of State and interim National Security Advisor Marco Rubio is more apt to choose another bite at the apple and support additional strikes.
The MAGA base may not approve of more strikes against Iran. America Firsters Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson have led the charge against war with Iran. They would not support further attacks. These restrainers and neo-isolationists want no foreign entanglements and would resist another bloody nose strike against Iran.
If an additional attack happened, it would come later in Trump’s term, perhaps around two years away if initial assessments of the destruction are correct. This would be another test for the White House to see how much the Republican base would support the military option against Iran.
However, MAGA adherents are not necessarily all isolationists. In a June poll of Republicans, commissioned by the think tank Vandenberg Coalition, the survey asked Trump loyalists about their views on foreign policy.
The poll found that “In reality, 92 percent of Trump voters surveyed believe a strong American presence makes the world safer, and 71 percent advocate for continued U.S. leadership on the global stage. Respondents are deeply concerned about threats from China, Iran, and Russia, strongly back defending Taiwan and Israel, and overwhelmingly praise President Trump’s recent military action to prevent a nuclear Iran.”
That means there would be some MAGA support for another bloody nose attack against Iran if necessary, but voters are always fickle, and Republicans could change their minds.
This dissent could harm Trump’s foreign policy legacy and damage his attempts to bring a just and lasting peace in the Middle East if further strikes against Iran are needed. The argument against forever wars is strong, despite the GOP’s support for the initial Iranian attack. Trump wants to declare a complete victory without the need for follow-up action.
His strike against Iran will define his presidency, and peace through strength is the ultimate standard. We will just have to wait and see if Iran can recover from its bloody nose and how the United States will respond in the future.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Fighter Jet Fails
Russia’s Su-57 Felon Stealth Fighter Is a Waste of Rubles
Jim
July 10, 2025 at 12:12 pm
The crux of the issue is civilian enrichment at 3.75% versus zero enrichment and total dismantlement.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated unequivocally no enrichment is acceptable and Iran cannot have a nuclear enrichment program at all.
First off, Steve Witkoff came back from one of the early rounds of negotiations with Iran suggesting a deal could be done where there is agreement Iran could have civilian enrichment with proper inspection & verification, which seemed to be a foundation for a full agreement between Iran and the United States… and in return Iran would receive economic sanction relief… which was Iran’s aim for the negotiations from the start.
But, mysteriously, after one appearance on a T. V. talk show and some pushback, Witkoff & Trump ruled out any civilian enrichment. Frankly, I’m suspicious the civilian enrichment statements by Witkoff were a headfake to get Iran into a negotiation where Trump could broadside Iran and, apparently, help Israel “sucker punch” Iran in the midst of ongoing negotiations.
(If a position of civilian enrichment at 3.75% was actually taken by the Trump administration in their negotiations with Iran it seems weak that one appearance on a talk show would cause Trump to cave in.)
A surprise attack during ongoing negotiations, a definite no, no, in good faith negotiations.
Anyway, Iran will not give up civilian enrichment of 3.75% as they see it as their sovereign right and as a treaty right under the NPT which allows civilian enrichment and they are a signer of the treaty, as is the United States, although, Israel is not a signer of the NPT treaty.
The author of the article needs to come to grips with the fact Iran has ballistic missiles, hypersonic & supersonic which can hit targets in Israel with precision and where hypersonics are almost impossible to stop and suspersonics are difficult to stop.
Israel took significant hits as even President Trump has publicly stated.
So, who ends up “mowing the grass?” It looks like Iran could be the one mowing the grass in Israel should Trump deem another bombing raid necessary. Or if Bibi slips off the leash and conducts another surprise attack.
Iran will respond with counter-strikes if Israel attacks it again… likely with a stronger response that during the 12 day war.
Israel is not invincible nor does it have impunity vis-a-vis Iran, anymore.
That’s a fact.
Iran’s technological prowess and ability via ballistic missiles puts the Israeli – Iran conflict in a whole new light.
How many times does Israel want it’s lawn mowed by Iran? And what type of “lawn job” does Israel want to receive?
And does Trump want the U. S. dragged into Bibi Netanyau’s longtime desire for regime change in Iran, even dismemberment into smaller ethnic enclaves?
The gravamen is civilian enrichment. Everybody knows that.
Do the Israeli People constantly want their lawn mowed by ballistic missiles they cannot stop.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Maybe they’re not so smart after all if they’re willing to invite ballistic missile barrages on a regular basis from Iran.
Civilian enrichment with proper safeguards, while Netanyahu wouldn’t like it, might be the only way Israel avoids harsh counter-strikes as response to periodic Israeli attacks (or U. S. attacks).