President Donald Trump said he would wait two weeks to decide whether to launch a military strike on Iran. Instead, he acted within 48 hours, plunging the United States into direct participation in Israel’s war against Iran and setting off fears of a broader regional conflict.
Speaking from the White House on early Sunday, just hours after American forces struck Iran’s nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Trump declared the mission a “spectacular success.” But the decision to strike came fast, two days after the President told reporters on Thursday he would wait: “I’m giving them (Iran) a period of time and I would say two weeks would be the maximum.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had reinforced the point, saying, “Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, the President will make his decision… within the next two weeks.”
Instead, on early Sunday, Trump confirmed a full military operation was underway. “We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran,” he wrote online. “All planes are now outside of Iran air space… All planes are safely on their way home.” He added: “This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR.”
A familiar 'two-week' promise
Trump’s abrupt pivot is not unprecedented. Over the years, he has routinely invoked a two-week timeline when faced with difficult decisions or contentious announcements. From tax reform and healthcare to Russia and North Korea, the former and current president has repeatedly promised action “in two weeks” often without follow-through.
In recent months, he has used the same line in reference to trade deals, tariffs, and foreign policy decisions, including his response to the Russia-Ukraine war. Eight weeks ago, when asked if he trusted Russian President Vladimir Putin, he responded, “I’ll let you know in about two weeks.”
This recurring pattern has raised questions about whether the ‘two-week’ window is meant as a negotiating tactic or a delay mechanism. In this case, it appears to have served as a smokescreen.
No longer peacemaker?
Trump once campaigned as the man who would bring America out of endless foreign entanglements. But six months into his second term, he has now led the United States directly into Israel’s military campaign against Iran, ordering the strikes on three key nuclear sites.
Speaking from the White House, flanked by Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump warned Iran of more attacks if it failed to abandon its nuclear ambitions. “There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,” he declared, moments after confirming that American forces had targeted Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles.
Trump’s move marks a dramatic shift from his long-standing rhetoric. On the campaign trail and throughout his first term, he had vowed to end “ridiculous endless wars” and reject the interventionism of past administrations. His 2024 campaign platform, dubbed “Agenda 47”, touted him as “the only president who rejected the catastrophic advice of Washington’s generals.”
MAGA backlash, Israeli praise
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from key figures in Trump’s own “America First” movement. Many accuse him of abandoning his non-interventionist roots.
Steve Bannon said Israel had “essentially forced President Trump’s hand,” while right-wing podcaster Theo Von expressed disillusionment: “It just feels like we’re working for Israel.” Tucker Carlson said there was “zero credible intelligence” justifying an attack on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Critics also pointed to the political inconsistency. Trump had repeatedly pledged to end “endless wars” and called himself “the only president in generations who didn’t start a war.” As a candidate and in office, he derided America’s foreign entanglements and claimed “great nations do not fight endless wars.”
But with US B-2 bombers and submarines now involved, and Iran promising retaliation, his position as a “peacemaker” is under strain.
“President Trump has clearly signalled, as he has all along, that he opposes a regime change war in Iran,” said media personality Jack Posobiec, attempting to frame the strike as narrowly targeted. Yet many observers fear it may spark further escalation. The White House has not ruled out additional military action if Iran retaliates.
Fallout and what's next?
In his address, Trump warned that if Iran struck back, it would face “force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.” Hours later, Iranian missiles were reported to have struck areas in Israel. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vowed the US attacks “will have everlasting consequences.”
Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed no radiation leaks at the sites and said assessments were ongoing.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “gravely alarmed” and warned of “catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world.” The Israeli military, too, announced it was preparing for a protracted war.
Trump, who left the G7 summit early to consult with advisers in Washington, now faces the challenge of containing the fallout. His swift decision has exposed deep divides within his base, invited international condemnation, and risked American lives in a volatile theatre.
Speaking from the White House on early Sunday, just hours after American forces struck Iran’s nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Trump declared the mission a “spectacular success.” But the decision to strike came fast, two days after the President told reporters on Thursday he would wait: “I’m giving them (Iran) a period of time and I would say two weeks would be the maximum.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had reinforced the point, saying, “Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, the President will make his decision… within the next two weeks.”
Instead, on early Sunday, Trump confirmed a full military operation was underway. “We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran,” he wrote online. “All planes are now outside of Iran air space… All planes are safely on their way home.” He added: “This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR.”
A familiar 'two-week' promise
Trump’s abrupt pivot is not unprecedented. Over the years, he has routinely invoked a two-week timeline when faced with difficult decisions or contentious announcements. From tax reform and healthcare to Russia and North Korea, the former and current president has repeatedly promised action “in two weeks” often without follow-through.
In recent months, he has used the same line in reference to trade deals, tariffs, and foreign policy decisions, including his response to the Russia-Ukraine war. Eight weeks ago, when asked if he trusted Russian President Vladimir Putin, he responded, “I’ll let you know in about two weeks.”
This recurring pattern has raised questions about whether the ‘two-week’ window is meant as a negotiating tactic or a delay mechanism. In this case, it appears to have served as a smokescreen.
No longer peacemaker?
Trump once campaigned as the man who would bring America out of endless foreign entanglements. But six months into his second term, he has now led the United States directly into Israel’s military campaign against Iran, ordering the strikes on three key nuclear sites.
Speaking from the White House, flanked by Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump warned Iran of more attacks if it failed to abandon its nuclear ambitions. “There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,” he declared, moments after confirming that American forces had targeted Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles.
Trump’s move marks a dramatic shift from his long-standing rhetoric. On the campaign trail and throughout his first term, he had vowed to end “ridiculous endless wars” and reject the interventionism of past administrations. His 2024 campaign platform, dubbed “Agenda 47”, touted him as “the only president who rejected the catastrophic advice of Washington’s generals.”
MAGA backlash, Israeli praise
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from key figures in Trump’s own “America First” movement. Many accuse him of abandoning his non-interventionist roots.
Steve Bannon said Israel had “essentially forced President Trump’s hand,” while right-wing podcaster Theo Von expressed disillusionment: “It just feels like we’re working for Israel.” Tucker Carlson said there was “zero credible intelligence” justifying an attack on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Critics also pointed to the political inconsistency. Trump had repeatedly pledged to end “endless wars” and called himself “the only president in generations who didn’t start a war.” As a candidate and in office, he derided America’s foreign entanglements and claimed “great nations do not fight endless wars.”
But with US B-2 bombers and submarines now involved, and Iran promising retaliation, his position as a “peacemaker” is under strain.
“President Trump has clearly signalled, as he has all along, that he opposes a regime change war in Iran,” said media personality Jack Posobiec, attempting to frame the strike as narrowly targeted. Yet many observers fear it may spark further escalation. The White House has not ruled out additional military action if Iran retaliates.
Fallout and what's next?
In his address, Trump warned that if Iran struck back, it would face “force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.” Hours later, Iranian missiles were reported to have struck areas in Israel. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vowed the US attacks “will have everlasting consequences.”
Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed no radiation leaks at the sites and said assessments were ongoing.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “gravely alarmed” and warned of “catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world.” The Israeli military, too, announced it was preparing for a protracted war.
Trump, who left the G7 summit early to consult with advisers in Washington, now faces the challenge of containing the fallout. His swift decision has exposed deep divides within his base, invited international condemnation, and risked American lives in a volatile theatre.
You may also like
Flights diverted, delayed: Airlines avoiding Middle-eastern skies; not flying in airspace over Iran, Iraq, Syria and Israel
Inside Trump's attack on Iran nuke bases with 'bunker buster' bombs and missiles
Horror rampage as gang of gunmen open fire at French wedding killing bride
Boost blueberry plants and make them 'tastier and healthier' adding 2 items to soil
Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner are at war - and there's only one winner
