Iran attacked a U.S. military base in the Middle East on Monday – in a strike that ironically boosted the possibility of a detente between Washington and Tehran, rather than a continued escalation into full-scale war.
The Iranian missile launch against the U.S.’s Al Udeid base in Qatar was intercepted, and the facility had been previously evacuated, said the Qatari government, an American ally that also has ties to Iran. Iranian officials told The New York Times they gave advance notice of the attack to their Qatari counterparts and saw the tit-for-tat as a retaliation for Saturday’s American strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, but one that offers an “exit ramp” for President Donald Trump.
Now, Trump will choose whether to use the moment to reduce tensions, likely by emphasizing the lack of damage Iran caused and avoiding a U.S. response, or to strike back at Iran, injecting further uncertainty into the tense regional dynamic. Following the Iranian barrage, Trump posted on Truth Social, “Hardly any damage was done… Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their ‘system.’”
Iran might be able to “now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same,” he continued. In a separate post, Trump wrote: “CONGRATULATIONS WORLD, IT’S TIME FOR PEACE!” And he later issued another post claiming a “ceasefire” would begin within hours as a fresh round of Israeli strikes hit Tehran.
Neither Israel nor Iran has confirmed a settlement has been reached, however, and U.S. military assets remain concentrated in the region as hawkish advisers remain close to Trump. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a proponent of regime change in Iran whose ongoing offensive against Iranian targets spurred the U.S. bombing, could still influence American policy, either through an unexpected escalation or by quietly permitting a settlement.
The situation highlights a surreal but important aspect of the complex relationship between the U.S. and its partner Israel, and their longtime foe Iran. It has repeatedly fallen to Tehran to move the parties away from an all-out confrontation that could be extremely bloody, volatile and a source of global instability.
“This was among the more measured Iranian options for retaliation,” Dalia Dassa Kaye, a senior fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote on Bluesky. “Best case now: US refrains from further strikes. But will Israel?”
In 2020, Iran pursued a similar strategy after Trump, in his first term, ordered the assassination of its most influential general, Qasem Soleimani, in Iraq. Iran launched a significant missile barrage at two American bases in the country, but signaled the attack was coming. The strike caused no deaths. Trump did not fire back, and later downplayed injuries sustained by more than 100 U.S. troops.
But the current situation is more complex because of muddled messages and policymaking under Trump — driven by factors like what he sees on Fox News — as well as a new scale of U.S.-Israel-Iran fighting.
After the president ordered the Saturday attack on Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities, some administration officials spoke of U.S. operations against Iran as limited, but Trump on Monday suggested he is seeking regime change there — an unpopular proposal domestically, and a vision that would rule out compromises for Iranian decision-makers.
Trump’s team “is hearing that the American people are against a regime change war, and trying to reconcile something they did which is in contradiction to his own promises,” said Negar Mortazavi, the host of the “Iran Podcast” and a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy think tank.
“He said he’s going to make peace between Russia and Ukraine [and] in Gaza… it’s not even six months, and he let a third big Middle East war start on his watch, and we are praying and expecting that the Iranians will be the responsible party to not let this become the next quagmire,” she continued.
“It has repeatedly fallen to Tehran to move the parties away from an all-out confrontation that could be extremely bloody, volatile and a source of global instability.”
Trump, who says he still seeks a compromise with Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, has argued military pressure will aid diplomacy.
Iran’s limited Monday attack, its longstanding willingness to engage in nuclear talks and negotiate limits on its program with U.S. officials, and its desire to avoid further danger to its population and regime could all keep Iran on a trajectory of moderation. Notably, it targeted Qatar, which serves as a regional mediator and has a policy of seeking de-escalation, rather than U.S. bases in Iraq, where intervention could spur unpredictable moves by pro-Iran militias or other militants. Tehran and Washington can both now note their attacks against each other did not cause any deaths.
Still, the appetite and arguments among some Iranians to be more assertive have been gaining ground after the U.S. strike and more than a week of Israeli attacks on the country that have killed hundreds and repeatedly targeted civilian areas, Mortazavi noted.
“There’s criticism coming at the state from surprising corners – not from very hardline corners but more moderate, reformist forces, pointing to the U.S. attack and saying this is a result of not responding decisively to the Soleimani attack” in 2020, she said. “Responding with a de-escalatory response also in the long term can invite more attacks.”
Defying the expectations of some Iranian regime insiders, Tehran decided to extend its response to the U.S. beyond its ongoing retaliatory strikes on Israel, which have killed 24.
The issue at the heart of the crisis – Iran’s nuclear enrichment – remains far from settled.
Saturday’s U.S. strike on Iranian facilities did not wipe out its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium, its infrastructure or its expertise, according to independent analysts and U.S. and Iranian officials. Given the slim chances of the kind of sweeping assault on Iran that eradicates those factors or leads to regime collapse, a deal about the nuclear program will eventually need to be negotiated.
Alternatively, a future and even more dangerous crisis could occur if Iran decides to use its capabilities to build a nuclear bomb, which Washington and Tel Aviv say would be unacceptable.
Preventing that outcome will mean reestablishing Iranians’ trust in dealings with outside powers, particularly the U.S., and a sophisticated diplomatic strategy by Trump.
“The strike we did can certainly prompt Iran to more seriously consider moving forward… with weaponization,” said Bonnie Jenkins, the chief arms control official at the State Department under former President Joe Biden.
While Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said he does not want to build a nuclear bomb, experts believe Tehran could change course, beginning with abandoning the treaty against global nuclear nonproliferation, or NPT, which bars nuclear weapons development by signatories that do not already have them.
Jenkins described concern that Iran will leave the treaty to develop “further deterrence” against Israel and other foes, and because of a lack of trust in any future U.S. commitment. That could spark a race among other nations to build weapons as well.
“It’s very important we help maintain the NPT… and help people realize that because of it, the vast majority of states haven’t developed nuclear weapons,” Jenkins said. “Obviously, the U.S. voice is somewhat tainted now with Iran… so you also need other strong voices in the international community to highlight the value of the treaty.”
Russia and China played a significant role in the establishment of the previous international deal limiting Iran’s nuclear program in 2015 — which Trump abandoned in 2018 — and have grown closer to Tehran since. European governments also participated.
Continued open conflict with the U.S. makes it harder for pro-diplomacy figures inside Iran’s system to argue for nuclear negotiations, Jenkins added. “Hopefully, this can be de-escalated, then those voices in Iran will be able to also have some influence.”
Israel, which is widely known to possess nuclear weapons, is not a signatory to the NPT.
