Key Points and Summary – President Trump’s decision to launch only a single wave of strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, despite having the legal authority for a more extended campaign, was a calculated move shaped by significant military and political constraints.
-A shortage of B-2 stealth bombers and critical “bunker buster” bombs, coupled with the high risk of losing an American pilot in a follow-on attack, made a larger operation militarily fraught.
-Politically, Trump faced a narrow window of support and uncertain intelligence about the initial strike’s success, making a declaration of “victory” after one decisive blow the most pragmatic, if not entirely conclusive, option.
The Iran War for America Was Just 1 Day…Why?
It is not yet clear how effective the mission to strike Iran’s nuclear program was.
Strikes might have removed the uranium-enrichment capability at one of the three sites hit, but Iran may still be able to progress to weapons-grade production.
Politically, Another Round of Strikes May Have Been Warranted
U.S. President Donald Trump had the support of most of his MAGA base to order the strikes. Many Americans are against Iran acquiring the bomb, and overall, a slight majority supported the strikes.
So Trump had the political capital to lengthen the duration and number of missions. Some more dovish Democrats and neo-isolationist GOP members were completely against any strikes on Iran, but most people understood the need for an attack.
He Had the Legal Authority
But could Trump have gone further?
According to the War Powers Resolution, the president can enter into military operations as long as he alerts Congress to details of the action 48 hours in advance.
Trump and his national security team did this. Even if Congress does not declare war, the president can continue a military operation for 60 days before he needs authorization for military force from Capitol Hill.
Hence, Trump was within his legal authority to continue the attacks on Iran, most likely for another week.
For the military, second and third strikes would have been difficult. The U.S. Air Force was running out of bunker-busting bombs, or massive ordnance penetrators.
A second group of B-2 stealth bombers was in Guam, having just traveled far. The pilots on the original mission were tired and would likely need two more days of rest before flying another mission.
Losing a Human Pilot Would Have Been Unthinkable
Another bombing run would have required using the non-stealth B-1B Lancer, which the U.S. could have tried, since Iranian air defense had been degraded.
However, an American bomber getting shot down would create a terrible situation. It would be a huge public relations win for Iran, and if a pilot were taken prisoner, the Iranians would have a hostage they could hold for months.
The Intelligence Is Just Not There
Intelligence collection and analysis has been difficult. Just what is the real battle damage assessment after the initial strike? How many hits would be required to be certain the nuclear sites are destroyed? Without reliable intel, the Air Force might just be attacking dry holes, wasting valuable bunker busters.
Israel could help with intelligence collection and analysis, as Mossad has had boots on the ground for 15 years. But these agents would not be able to peer 300 feet below ground level to get a correct assessment.
More strikes against Iran would have been difficult, and Trump did not have the military wherewithal, the political will, or the intelligence to confirm the first strike was successful.
Launching additional strikes now would be possible, but fraught with risk. The doves in Congress and in the MAGA world would oppose further attacks, and hitting the sites with complete accuracy might not ever be possible.
Trump has done the best that he can. He hit once with authority and declared victory. The United States is the only country in the world that could have carried out the strikes. The president had legal authority to continue the attacks, but members of Congress would have squawked that Trump was going to cause a full war.
Besides, there is the worry that Iran could always strike back by closing the Strait of Hormuz, sending missiles to U.S. bases in the Middle East, using sleeper cells for terrorism, and carrying out cyber-attacks.
Iran’s response after the initial strike has been muted. Though it is not known whether they tried any cyber operations or terror attacks against America, no such attack has been successful that we know of.
This Is Not Over
One strike was probably the best the U.S. could do for now. The Air Force may have to mow the Iranian nuclear grass in the future with another, depending on how quickly Iran progresses enriching uranium.
Tehran can still order its nuclear scientists and technicians to go back to work, especially if they removed the fissile material and placed it in another, safer location. Iran will still pursue a nuclear weapon despite U.S. military efforts.
Trump had a window of another week or so to order more strikes against Iranian nuclear infrastructure. He had some political capital to expend, but his opponents, especially Democrats and some in his party, were against military action in the first place.
One round of strikes is all the United States could do, at least I would argue, but that does not rule out further action in a few months.
The Iranians are not ready to give up and stop progress on their nuclear program, and Trump’s best efforts could not have stopped the Iranian urgency to complete a nuclear weapon someday.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Jim
July 19, 2025 at 11:00 am
“…and neo-isolationist GOP members…”
Why is this phrase seemingly obligatory or something similar when referring to Americans who are non-interventionist generally or have specific objections to the militarists’ war plans of the moment?
Why is being tired of forever war somehow isolationist?
“Isolationist,” is designed de-legitimize opposition to militarists’ war plans. Another is to question Americans’ patriotism if they object to the militarists war plans.
Why was there opposition to further bombing? Because Americans didn’t want to dragged into a full-blown regime change war to topple the Iranian government and leave it in chaos.
But, here, the author is misleading his readers by claiming any opposition is in effect, “know nothing isolationism.”
Pathetic!
The reason there weren’t further strikes was because the strike was designed to be a fire break and a “back fire,” if you will, to stop the war.
All your rationals for no further bombing misses the entire reason for the bombing: to put ‘skin in the game’ so that the United States could intervene to stop the war.
And that’s exactly what happened, the bombing ended up being the defining act which finally stopped the war along with Iran’s effective hypersonic and supersonic ballistic missiles which were hurting Israel, so Trump intervened, stopped the war and dubbed it the 12 Day War.
Look, I don’t know about you, but not wanting a second regime change war in the Middle East, the first being Iraq, isn’t isolationist.
It was prudence & caution based on prior experience.
And, no, a majority of Americans didn’t want another regime change war in the Middle East, the first worked out so well… NOT!
Come on, Eastwood, you’re better than this dribble… the real reason Trump was ‘one and done’ and stopped the war was because it was in the United States interest to stop the was before it engulfed the entire Middle East.
… and shhh… it was in Israel’s interest to stop the war, too!
Comprendí?