The White House characterized the airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities using B-2 stealth bombers on the 22nd (local time) as a successful operation that embodied "Peace through Strength."
However, in Washington's political circles, calculations of what President Donald Trump gained and lost from this high-intensity military action are underway.
Critics analyzed that Trump's action led to the loss of support from his political base, MAGA, trust within the international community, and the precariously maintained peace in the Middle East.
On the other hand, supporters argued that it was a "strategic decision" showing U.S. resolve to prevent nuclear proliferation and to avert a larger war.
The world is watching closely how Trump's decision, made as someone who proclaimed to be a "master of transactions," will shape the future of the Middle East.
① MAGA ‘war hawk returns’ criticism amid ‘strong leader’ praise
"We have spent trillions of dollars on endless Middle Eastern wars. Now that money should be spent for America."
This was a phrase frequently uttered by Trump. The core supporters of Trump, MAGA, were enthusiastic about this America-first and isolationist policy. 'Make America Great Again,' abbreviated as 'MAGA,' was Trump's campaign slogan in the 2016 election. Recently, it is used to refer to fanatic supporters of Trump.
Neo-conservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led the Iraq War during George W. Bush's administration, claiming they would spread democracy in the Middle East. Trump harshly criticized these neo-conservatives as "war hawks." MAGA supporters cheered for this aspect of Trump.
There are criticisms that by conducting the airstrike in Iran, Trump has followed the very neo-conservatives he despised.
The Guardian reported on the 22nd that "Trump's core supporters have started to utter the word 'traitor,'" and added that there is an explosion of criticism within MAGA that "Trump has ultimately been co-opted by the Washington elite and neo-conservatives."
Particularly, as the fact emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly requested this airstrike, the anger felt by these supporters is growing.
A significant portion of the fervent MAGA supporters is known to share anti-Semitic and anti-elite tendencies. They criticized this airstrike as a decision that sacrificed American youth for "Israeli interests" over U.S. national interests.
TIME magazine cited experts, saying, "Trump's political asset was the absolute support of voters tired of traditional politics, not the Republican mainstream," and added, "This decision is a fatal misstep that undermines that foundation."
In contrast, conservative media outlets like Fox News described the airstrike as a bold decision to eliminate an imminent threat, showcasing a strong leader through decisive action rather than weak diplomacy.
They evaluated that Trump practiced America-first policies by using unpredictability as a weapon rather than a return of neo-conservatives.
② Between 'unpredictable risks' and 'new negotiation formulas'
This airstrike is the largest military operation the U.S. has conducted in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq War.
Just earlier this month, Trump indicated the possibility of negotiations, saying he was "prepared to talk with Iran." He even stated he would give Iran a "two-week grace period" after Israel's preemptive attack.
The promise turned to a scrap of paper in just one day. Trump ordered the airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities immediately after a phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
TIME reported, "World leaders are gravely alarmed by the unpredictability and capriciousness of the U.S.," raising concerns about how to engage in diplomacy and negotiations with a country that flips its own statements overnight.
Immediately, denuclearization negotiations with North Korea have also entered a fog. North Korea is likely to have learned from this airstrike that "the U.S. can break promises at any time." Even if they manage to sit down at the negotiating table for denuclearization, it has become difficult to find incentives for them to sign a final agreement.
If Iran stealthily embarks on nuclear development like North Korea, there are also no sharp measures to prevent it. Unlike North Korea, which rejected International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, Iran has been precariously on the brink of nuclear development while accepting IAEA inspections.
In contrast, the White House viewed this airstrike as both "the end of failed diplomacy" and "the beginning of a new negotiation formula."
The American conservative camp centered on the Republican Party believed that the nuclear agreement (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) reached during the Obama administration was inadequate to prevent Iran's nuclear development in the long run.
This airstrike signifies one of Trump's negotiation tactics, aiming to secure more definitive denuclearization promises based on military superiority instead of weak agreements.
③ Is it ‘peace through strength’ or ‘chaos in the Middle East’?
The White House remarked shortly after the airstrike on the 21st, "This airstrike has made the U.S. and its allies safer."
It remains uncertain how much damage was inflicted on Iran's nuclear facilities by this airstrike.
On the 23rd, Iran adopted a resolution in Parliament to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil traffic passes.
Iranian proxies, such as the Yemeni Houthi rebels and Lebanese Hezbollah, are likely to launch retaliatory attacks against U.S. forces and Israel.
Currently, about 40,000 U.S. troops are stationed at 19 military bases in the Middle East.
Foreign Policy pointed out that "Trump chose the path of losing rather than winning in the war with Iran," criticizing that he has harmed long-term stability in the Middle East and U.S. national interests by being intoxicated by short-term military results.
Supporters, however, argued that this was an unavoidable measure to prevent a larger war. They claimed it was a preventive act of self-defense that curbed Iranian provocations at the brink of war, rather than instigating further conflict.
Iran is a nation with unparalleled national power, military strength, and international standing compared to Iraq or Afghanistan, which the U.S. previously dealt with.
Some predict that if Iran had completed its nuclear armament, a much more destructive and large-scale war could have erupted across the Middle East.