As the Middle East teeters on the edge of broader conflict, President Donald Trump has added a fresh layer of suspense to an already volatile situation. When asked on Tuesday about the possibility of the United States joining Israel in striking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Trump offered a characteristically cryptic response: “I may do it, I may not do it.” The remark, vague yet chilling in its implications, comes amid escalating violence between Israel and Iran and mounting global anxiety over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
A Region in Crisis
The stakes are higher than they’ve been in years. In early June, Israel launched an unprecedented series of coordinated strikes against Iranian military and nuclear-related targets, including sites near Natanz and Isfahan. These operations, which combined manned fighter sorties with sophisticated drone sabotage—believed to be aided by Mossad—crippled critical missile installations and destroyed at least a portion of Iran’s air defense infrastructure. Israeli officials claim the strikes neutralized up to 800 missile systems and killed over 200 personnel. Iran disputes the numbers but acknowledges “significant damage.”
In retaliation, Iran fired a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones at Israeli cities. Most were intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling systems, but not all. Civilian casualties occurred in Ashkelon and Beersheba, with at least 24 reported dead and dozens more injured. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has vowed further retaliation if the United States becomes involved, declaring that any additional intervention would provoke “irreparable damage” to U.S. interests in the region.
Why U.S. Bombs Matter
Despite the force and precision of Israel’s strikes, there is one critical problem: they cannot touch Fordow. Iran’s Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, buried roughly 80 meters beneath a mountain near Qom, is designed to survive almost any conventional attack. Israeli munitions simply don’t have the required penetrative power to damage the site effectively. Only one known non-nuclear weapon has the potential to destroy Fordow—the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound “bunker buster” in the U.S. arsenal.
That reality places the United States in a uniquely pivotal position. Any meaningful strike on Fordow would require not just the MOP bomb, but also a B-2 stealth bomber to deliver it and a broader mission involving cyber warfare, satellite coordination, and the suppression of Iranian radar and anti-air defenses. In short, if Fordow is to be taken out, it will be with American might—not Israeli.
Trump’s Calculated Ambiguity
President Trump, now in his second non-consecutive term, has made confronting Iran a recurring centerpiece of his foreign policy. But his latest comments appear intentionally vague. “I’m not looking for a fight,” he said during a press briefing. “But we are not going to let them have nuclear weapons. They had a chance to talk. They didn’t take it. That window has closed.”
His statement—”I may do it, I may not do it”—has drawn comparisons to his past strategic ambiguity, including rhetoric around North Korea in 2017. By keeping both adversaries and allies guessing, Trump may be leveraging uncertainty as a deterrent.
But some analysts warn that this approach risks backfiring. “Ambiguity only works if you’re in control of the timeline,” says Dr. Lena Qureshi, a Middle East security expert at the Wilson Center. “With Iran pushing the envelope and Israel already acting, Trump’s fence-sitting could create a dangerous vacuum—or force him into a war he didn’t plan.”
The Bigger Picture: Global Implications
Russia, still embroiled in the protracted war in Ukraine, has offered to mediate between Iran and Israel. Trump brushed aside the offer, suggesting Moscow should focus on its own issues. Meanwhile, European powers—France, Germany, and the UK—are scrambling to resurrect diplomatic talks with Iran, fearing a regional war could upend already fragile oil markets and migration patterns.
Back in Washington, Trump’s national security team has reportedly been divided on the issue. While hawks in his inner circle favor a direct strike on Fordow, others advocate waiting to see if the Israeli campaign can succeed without U.S. firepower.
The Pentagon has already repositioned assets, sending a carrier strike group into the Arabian Sea and bolstering defenses in U.S. bases across Iraq and Kuwait. Civilian advisories have been issued for Americans in Lebanon, Jordan, and the UAE.
What This Means for the World
For average citizens around the globe, the rising tension is already being felt. Oil prices jumped by more than 7% in a single day, with Brent crude passing $76 per barrel. Gas prices in the U.S. Midwest are nearing $5 per gallon again. In Europe, political leaders are warning of renewed refugee waves if full-scale war breaks out.
The possibility of a U.S. airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities is no longer a distant threat—it’s a coin flip. The President of the United States has left the world with five haunting words: “I may do it. I may not.”
Whether this is a bluff, a genuine warning, or the prelude to a wider conflict may be decided not in Washington, Tehran, or Jerusalem—but in the darkness beneath a mountain near Qom.
Sources:
