By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On June 21, 2025, President Trump ordered US airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, escalating an existing Israeli-Iranian conflict. This action directly contradicts prior statements by Trump and his intelligence agencies, indicating a significant and sudden shift in US foreign policy. The strikes, using powerful bunker-buster bombs, aim to cripple Iran’s nuclear program, potentially forcing a new deal but risking wider conflict and Iranian retaliation. Trump’s decision, made without congressional or international approval, marks a distinct departure from his previous approach to the region and represents a gamble with potentially severe consequences.
Read the original article here
This time, it’s Trump’s war, a stark contrast to previous conflicts where he could deflect blame onto predecessors. This isn’t about inherited crises; this is a direct action taken under his sole authority, leaving no room for the usual finger-pointing at Obama or Biden. The bombing of Iranian nuclear sites marks a significant escalation, a decision entirely his own, with no prior administration’s policies to shield him from responsibility.
This war is different because it’s not a continuation of an existing conflict; it’s a new engagement, initiated by Trump himself. Past military actions, such as the air war against ISIS or interventions in Syria and Somalia, could be arguably presented as responses to ongoing situations inherited from previous administrations. But this is a calculated, unilateral action, one that firmly places the responsibility squarely on his shoulders.
The convenient scapegoating that characterized Trump’s previous tenure is rendered futile here. There’s no pre-existing war to claim he was merely managing; this is a new venture, a new conflict born directly from his decisions and actions. The attempt to shift blame to Democrats will ring hollow this time; even his most loyal supporters might struggle to find a credible argument for this one.
The sheer audacity of this move is striking. The decision to unilaterally bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, without prior congressional approval or any meaningful international consultation, is a bold, if not reckless, step. It directly challenges established norms of diplomatic engagement and international relations, further solidifying this as a distinctly Trumpian action.
The anticipated fallout from this action is substantial. Economic consequences, particularly regarding fuel prices, are almost certain to trigger a recession. Domestically, the political repercussions could be equally devastating, particularly for the Republican party, although their ingrained loyalty to Trump may temporarily obscure this. Internationally, the impact will ripple across global alliances and reshape the Middle East’s political landscape.
The blatant disregard for established procedures and international cooperation is alarming. The lack of consultation with Congress, the avoidance of diplomatic avenues, and the solitary nature of the decision underline the extent of Trump’s unchecked power and his willingness to disregard both domestic and international norms. This action signifies a dangerous disregard for democratic process and accountability.
The possibility of a prolonged conflict is a chilling prospect. The bombing of Iranian nuclear sites raises the stakes considerably and increases the likelihood of further escalation. This could trigger a protracted conflict, similar to past US involvements in the Middle East, potentially leading to decades of ongoing instability and warfare, a catastrophic consequence resting solely on Trump’s shoulders.
Trump’s claims of peacemaking during his first term are demonstrably false. Despite his assertions, he oversaw military actions in various regions. However, in those instances, he could justify his involvement by framing it as a response to inherited problems. This time, there’s no such justification; the action is wholly his own, and the consequences are solely his responsibility.
This war, unlike previous conflicts where a degree of plausible deniability existed, is undeniably Trump’s. There’s no shadow of doubt; the act of aggression stems directly from his choices, ignoring advice and established protocols, thereby leaving him completely accountable. This act establishes a new and terrifying precedent for future presidential actions.
The public reaction is likely to be divided, as usual. However, the sheer audacity of this decision and its potentially disastrous consequences might even cause some of his staunch supporters to question the wisdom of his actions. The usual partisan rhetoric will surely follow, but it will be difficult, even for Trump, to mask his sole accountability for the situation unfolding before us.
In the wake of this action, it will be interesting to observe how Trump attempts to manipulate the narrative. History suggests he will seek to place the blame on Democrats and his predecessors, but this blatant act of aggression is difficult to spin. His usual tactics of obfuscation and misinformation may prove less effective this time, owing to the clear and unmistakable nature of his personal responsibility for this conflict. This is undeniably Trump’s war, and he cannot avoid the weight of that responsibility.