In a series of conflicting messages to Iran, the Trump administration initially signaled a willingness to resume negotiations following a surprise attack on three of Iran’s nuclear sites. However, President Trump later hinted at the possibility of regime change in Iran. Despite Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasizing that the mission was not about regime change, the administration’s intimidating statements have made it challenging to gauge their true intentions.

While asserting that the U.S. does not seek war with Iran, Vice President JD Vance suggested that the strikes could prompt Iran to return to the negotiating table. However, the situation remains precarious as Iran holds various retaliatory options, including blocking oil shipments, attacking U.S. bases, engaging in cyber warfare, or accelerating its nuclear program.

The U.S. national security team, led by Hegseth and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, claimed success in severely damaging Iran’s nuclear facilities. Despite emphasizing the operation’s focus on nuclear sites, the international community expressed concerns about the escalation of conflict and potential global repercussions.

Iran and its allies condemned the U.S. military action, with Iran’s foreign minister warning that Washington’s actions had crossed a red line. Meanwhile, global leaders emphasized the need for diplomatic solutions and a swift return to negotiations.

The Pentagon’s explanation for the strikes highlighted strategic deception and a timeline set by Trump for talks with Iran. The operation’s success was attributed to Iran’s weakened air defenses, allowing the U.S. to carry out the attacks unopposed.

As tensions escalate, the world watches closely to see whether the strikes will lead to further conflict in the already volatile Middle East or pave the way for renewed diplomatic efforts.