Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and other lawmakers had warned that U.S. strikes on Iran could trigger a global conflict, but the region has since seen a period of relative stability. The unexpected calm is raising questions about whether decisive U.S. action restored deterrence or was simply a matter of luck. When U.S. forces launched strikes against Iranian military targets in June, critics warned it could ignite a regional inferno — even the start of World War III. Four months later, the Middle East is quieter than at any point in years. Iranian proxies have scaled back attacks, Gulf tensions have cooled, and Washington has shifted attention toward the Western Hemisphere. The calm is now being credited by some as a result of United States’ actions that deterred further conflict, while others see it as sheer luck. Those who favor a more forceful U.S. foreign policy counted Iran’s lack of a response as a win for their frame of mind — and a loss for restrainers. They now credit the strikes with bringing about a period of relative peace that culminated in a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas this week. Rep. Greene, who had previously criticized the strikes, has since praised Trump for brokering the peace deal between Israel and Hamas. However, experts like Adam Weinstein, deputy director of the Middle East Program at the Quincy Institute, cautioned that the strikes put U.S. troops and embassies at risk and squandered diplomatic leverage. Meanwhile, some argue that the strikes were a calculated move to demonstrate resolve and deter further Iranian aggression.
The strikes, which were authorized by Trump, have been viewed by some as a continuation of his ‘America First’ principles. Trump’s authorization of the strikes was not a departure from his ‘America First’ principles, as Greene suggested, but a continuation of them. When it comes to hitting an adversary hard, Trump has always been open to that kind of short, sharp, decisive use of force to achieve a clear objective, said Matthew Kroenig, vice president of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center and a former Pentagon strategist. Those in the restraint camp say they don’t count Trump’s decision as a total loss for their viewpoint. They argue that predictions of a wider war were based on a different scenario — one that Trump ultimately avoided. The prediction that this could lead to a wider war was for the scenario in which the U.S. would join Israel in a larger military campaign against Iran with the intent of regime change. This is not what Trump opted for. He clearly signaled to Tehran before the strikes where he would strike to ensure that the locations would be vacated and that there would be no casualties. He also signaled his intent to only strike these sites and be done with it. This significantly reduced the risk of a larger escalation.
Rosemary Kelanic of Defense Priorities acknowledged that the strikes were