Trump Shifts to Military Option in Iran-Israel War, Eyes Strike on Fordow Nuclear Site
White House abandons diplomacy as Trump signals U.S. military involvement; National Security Council holds emergency meeting on intervention plans.
Watan-In the past 24 hours, the White House has rapidly shifted toward favoring a military solution over diplomacy in the escalating Iran-Israel war. For the first time, the U.S. National Security Council convened a special session to assess the administration’s strategic options, signaling that President Trump has abandoned his wavering position in favor of a decisive course expected to be announced before the end of the week.
According to most sources, including near-confirmed reports, Trump has closed the door on negotiations, choosing instead a “field option” aimed at boosting Israel’s military advantage over Iran. Observers believe this shift contradicts Trump’s earlier pledges to avoid foreign entanglements and results from a well-crafted strategic setup orchestrated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had already secured the White House’s yellow-green light to initiate the war.
From Diplomacy to Force
In the first three days of the war, the U.S. stance oscillated.
-
On Friday, Trump praised Israel’s “great success” in its attacks while keeping diplomacy on the table, urging Iran to “make a deal before they have nothing left.”
-
On Saturday, he consulted with Russian President Vladimir Putin, hoping for mediation, though Putin’s support leaned only toward ending the war.
-
By Sunday, Trump was again pressing for talks, hinting at “peace between Iran and Israel” and claiming “ongoing contacts and meetings.”
But by Monday night, Trump’s tone had transformed from peace overtures to explicit threats of military force. He left the G7 summit early, issued combative statements, and demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” He even hinted at the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader and called for the evacuation of Tehran, raising questions over the dramatic escalation and its true purpose.
This stark pivot has fueled speculation about direct U.S. military involvement—possibly alongside Israel—and even a regime change agenda supported by Netanyahu’s allies in Washington. The most likely form of intervention? A U.S. airstrike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility using a bunker-buster bomb, according to figures like Eurasia Group president Ian Bremmer. Yet military experts warn there is no guarantee of successfully destroying the site, and the risks of attempting regime change remain high.
Risks and Congressional Pushback
Comparisons to the Iraq War loom large, raising critical concerns: What comes after a strike? Could the U.S. become entangled in another Middle East quagmire? Most analysts express skepticism over the viability of regime change, given Iran’s internal cohesion.
In response, debate has erupted in Congress, with new proposals demanding Trump seek prior authorization for any military action. Legally, the president can deploy force for 30 days (renewable once) without congressional approval in emergencies. But historically, U.S. presidents have bypassed this rule—Vietnam being a precedent—and Trump appears poised to follow suit.
Though Trump holds sway over the Republican-controlled Congress, he faces a divided base. Some in his “America First” camp support military action alongside Israel; others warn it could spell the end of his presidency. Still, these challenges do not appear to be serious obstacles, particularly regarding the anticipated strike on Fordow, which now seems more a question of when, not if.
