The alluring fantasy of a quick win in Iran – The Economist – 25.06.25
- Michael Julien
- Jun 26
- 4 min read
Murky intelligence suggests containing the regime requires years of American muscle.
After the elation, the doubt. President Donald Trump said that “Operation Midnight Hammer”, had “totally obliterated” Iran’s uranium-enrichment facilities. But now an early intelligence assessment leaked on June 24th suggests the nuclear programme has only been set back by months and that some enriched uranium may have been spirited away.
The report is an early “low-confidence” assessment that both the Trump administration and Israeli sources eschew. But it illuminates a bigger problem. Mr Trump wants a quick-fix to the Iran nightmare with a single, clarifying mega-strike, a ceasefire and then prosperity. Instead America faces years of uncertainty over Iran’s capabilities and intentions. As a result Mr Trump’s assumption—that he can have a one-day Middle East military triumph and then quickly secure a lasting deal—may be badly misplaced.
The good news for Mr Trump is that his ceasefire, declared on June 24th, appears to be holding. And the leaked assessment, from the Defence Intelligence Agency, is hardly definitive. It is likely to be revised and there will be competing evaluations from other agencies. Israeli sources emphasise satellite images alone reveal relatively little about the strikes’ efficacy below ground and insist that Israel has kept track of the highly enriched uranium.
J.D. Vance, the vice-president, said on June 23rd that the uranium was safely “buried”. The International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN watchdog, reckons that major damage was caused at the two big enrichment sites. Experts say the blast may have created enough of a shock-wave to damage fragile centrifuges even if it did not destroy the main underground concrete structures.
Yet this maddening uncertainty is not a bug—it is an inherent feature of this kind of air-war and bombing operation. And it highlights a deeply uncomfortable question. If Iran’s leaders cling to power and continue to pursue a clandestine nuclear programme, dealing with it will require America’s long-term military commitment to the region. Is it really up for it?
The answer is “maybe”. Mr Trump has spoken of the ceasefire lasting “for ever” and made a comparison with Hiroshima: “That ended that war. This ended the war”. On June 24th Mr Vance hailed a new foreign-policy doctrine that would “change the world”, consisting of a “clearly defined” American interest, “aggressive” negotiation and the use of “overwhelming force” if required. In fact the outlook on Iran is far murkier. America may delegate the task of suppressing Iran’s military and any ongoing nuclear programme to Israel, whose spies have shown exceptional skill in penetrating the regime and whose pilots control the skies.
Yet Israel is at the limit of its capabilities and Iran will rebuild its defences. America may have to give constant support and weapons. It may be called on to defend Israel and the Gulf from Iranian strikes. And it may have to send bombers back to hit targets beyond Israel’s reach. America has become a co-belligerent with Israel and taken ownership of the Iran nuclear file. If the regime collapses Mr Trump may be asked to try to stop the chaos spreading across the region.
Some in America fear this may amount to a new “forever war” with the effort to pacify a recalcitrant Iran drawing America into a quagmire. Some draw a parallel with the first Gulf war in 1991, when America expelled Iraq from Kuwait but did not depose Saddam Hussein. Instead it tried to control his weapons of mass destruction and thuggery through inspections, embargoes, no-fly-zones and bombing.
“If you just changed one letter in the country’s name it could all become eerily familiar,” says Richard Fontaine of the Centre for a New American Security, a think-tank in Washington. “The least likely scenario is that Iran just disappears as a security threat.” The exasperating containment of Iraq was a prelude to the invasion of 2003.
An alternative is to try to turn a transient military success into a stable political settlement. Previous presidents have been burned. Ronald Reagan’s peacekeeping mission in Lebanon brought suicide attacks on American soliders and diplomats in 1983. Barack Obama’s air campaign in Libya in 2011 caused a still-raging civil war. Mr Trump has claimed Mr Reagan’s slogan of “peace through strength”. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, says “promising” talks are happening with Iran, directly and indirectly. Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, says it is ready to resolve its differences with America “within the framework of international norms”.
The priority is to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme (though the effort might plausibly extend to ending Israel’s war in Gaza and fostering a normalisation deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia). The most convincing agreement would be one that forces Iran to give up its capacity to enrich uranium and surrender its stock of fissile material enriched to 60%, which is close to the weapons-grade.
But Iran has always insisted on the right to enrich for “civilian” purposes. And Mr Trump may find that his blandishments about trade, money-making and friendship with America are not enough to tempt newly empowered hardliners in Iran who are rattled after the success of Israel’s attack and nervous at their lack of deterrence. The harder Mr Trump pushes for “zero enrichment”, the harder it will be to persuade Iran into a deal.
Mr Trump has argued to his base that a short burst of demonstrative force yields decisive results. If he now threatens an immediate return to military action, prominent MAGA devotees will complain that he is leading America into another Middle Eastern debacle. And if he commits to a strategy of long-term containment, some of his own strategists will balk at the aircraft carriers, planes and air-defence systems diverted from Asia. The administration’s interim national defence guidance, from March, declared that America’s military priorities henceforth were defending the homeland and preventing a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. It has only taken three months for events to impose a totally different reality.■
For this article, please click here:
Sign up to the Middle East Dispatch, a weekly newsletter that keeps you in the loop on a fascinating, complex and consequential part of the world.
Commentaires