“Two weeks” turned out to be two days.
On Thursday Donald Trump gave the Iranians a deadline if they wanted to avoid a US strike on their nuclear facilities, but that deadline turned out to be much shorter than expected.
Two days later, the US president announced on Saturday evening that US warplanes had bombed three nuclear sites, in an attack he said was “very successful”.
Was the “two-week deadline” for negotations a feint? A bid to lure the Iranians into a false sense of security this weekend? Or did behind-the-scenes negotiations led by Trump’s designated peacemaker Steve Witkoff collapse?
In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, little is known. But in his social media post declaring the attacks, Trump added that “now is the time for peace”.
That may be an optimistic outlook, however.
Iran had warned of reprisals if the US joined Israel in attacking its sovereign territory. And while the Israelis have made considerable efforts toward degrading Iran’s military capabilities, the ayatollah still has weapons at his disposal.
Things could get messy fast.
Now the waiting game begins. How will Iran respond to attacks on three of its sites, including Fordo, seen as the crown jewel of its nuclear programme?
Trump appears to be hoping the US strikes force Iran to make greater concessions at the negotiating table, but it seems unlikely that a nation unwilling to talk while under Israeli attack will be more inclined when American bombs are also falling.
And while Trump seemed to be implying that the US attack was a singular, successful event, it will take time to determine whether the Americans actually achieved their goal of destroying the heavily fortified Iranian nuclear research facilities.
If not, then the pressure to strike again will grow – or the president will have taken a serious political risk for minimal military gain.
That risk includes domestic political concerns, along with questions of international security. The prospect of a US attack on Iran had already prompted sharp criticisms not only from Democrats but also from within Trump’s own “America First” movement.
If this attack is a one-off event, Trump may be able to smooth over the divisions within his base. But if it pulls the US into a larger conflict, the president who styles himself as a “peacemaker” could have an uprising with his ranks.
Saturday’s attack was an aggressive move for a president who boasted of starting no new wars during his first presidential term and who regularly railed against predecessors who had drawn the country into foreign conflicts on the campaign trail last year.
Trump has made his move. Where it goes from here is not entirely within his control.
