[Text/Observer Network Liu Chenghui] After the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, U.S. President Trump struck a haughty "victory" posture. However, not all U.S. government officials share this view.

"Trump strikes a victory tone, but the White House is wary of Iran's retaliation." On June 22, Politico News published an article revealing that unlike Trump himself, officials within the U.S. government are not optimistic. They are preparing for possible Iranian retaliation and worry about the U.S. being drawn back into the Middle East war. One internal source expressed concern about "too many risks of escalation," while another senior official worried, "We don't know how much this will involve us in a prolonged conflict."

American scholars have warned that Trump's attack on Iran evokes memories of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The current White House is living in a "bubble" and needs some "clear-headed people" to point out the issues.

The article notes that deploying B-2 bombers to attack Iran is one of the most significant military actions during Trump's presidency, which could drag the U.S. into another Middle Eastern war. Trump and Vice President Vance have long promised to avoid such conflicts.

"We don't know how much this will involve us in a prolonged conflict," said an anonymous U.S. government official. "The current information indicates that we aim to eliminate (Iran's) nuclear capabilities and focus on negotiations."

On June 21, Trump delivered a national address at the White House regarding the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Visual China

According to a senior White House official, Trump has become increasingly convinced in recent days that he has a rare opportunity to destroy Tehran's nuclear capabilities with minimal risk to American troops.

Another government official and someone close to the White House revealed that even before Trump stated he would decide within "two weeks" whether to join Israel in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, the strike plan was already underway.

A Trump administration official said that even if Trump had expressed hope for easing tensions, he was still weighing military options at the time. "He studied various strike plans and chose a targeted approach."

Soon after the strike, Trump declared it "very successful," implying that the attack on Iran has ended. He also pressured Iran to return to the negotiating table, warning that if they did not, Iran would face a tragedy "far worse than the past eight days."

Although the Trump administration has become increasingly confident that Israel's previous actions have severely weakened Iran's military capabilities and made it difficult to trigger a wider regional war, concerns persist within Trump's circle.

After all, the situation depends on Iran's next move. If Iran chooses to retaliate, over 40,000 U.S. troops and Defense Department civilian personnel in the Middle East may become targets.

A source familiar with internal government debates said, "There are many risks of escalation here." The source indicated that if Iran's response leads to large-scale casualties among Americans, "the U.S. will face more pressure to intervene."

The source added that Defense Secretary Hackett will "feel the pressure and prove in some way that the strike was as successful as Trump claimed."

Pentagon assessments this year suggest that due to the underground depth and dispersed layout of Iran's nuclear facilities, the U.S. military would need 30 days of continuous strikes to destroy them.

Regarding how Iran might respond to the U.S. intervention, Abbas Aslani, a senior researcher at the Middle East Strategic Research Center in Tehran, told Al Jazeera that after the U.S. attack, Iran may adopt three scenarios.

"One possibility is a limited response, depending on the scale of the damage," he said. "But let's not forget that this is direct U.S. involvement in the war with Iran. Iran has previously warned that they will respond to this action."

"The second scenario could be full-scale war, where Iran attempts to launch serious attacks on U.S. and Israeli interests. This might involve wide-ranging targets, including Israeli nuclear facilities, and Iran's allies may join in."

He added that the third option could be a mix of both, where Iran could leverage levers like the Strait of Hormuz to take actions against regional energy.

After the U.S. military attack, Iran launched a new wave of missile strikes against Israel on the 22nd. According to Agence France-Presse citing Iranian media reports, Iran launched 30 missiles at Israel.

According to The Times of Israel, air raid sirens sounded in multiple areas of central and northern Israel that day. The Israeli Defense Forces estimated that Iran conducted two rounds of missile salvos, launching at least 27 missiles, with 22 in the first round and five in the second, injuring at least 16 people. Over ten locations nationwide were affected, with one missile hitting Haifa.

On June 22, the scene of missile strikes in central Israel, part of the building collapsed, and rescue workers were active. Visual China

On June 22, social media circulating Iran's missile trajectory

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghi warned that the U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will have "permanent consequences," and Iran retains all self-defense options.

"Today's events are deplorable and will have permanent consequences," Araghi wrote on social media. "In accordance with the United Nations Charter and its provisions allowing for legitimate self-defense responses, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people."

Currently, several parties have condemned the U.S. attack on Iran.

UN Secretary-General Guterres criticized the U.S. attack on Iran as a "dangerous escalation," stating there is no military solution, and diplomacy is the only path. Several Latin American leaders condemned the U.S.'s "military aggression" against Iran and called for easing regional tensions.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Peters said, "Ongoing military actions in the Middle East are extremely concerning," and the Australian government "urges de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomatic consultations."

American military analyst and chairman of the international relations think tank "Killowen Group," Harlan Ullman, mentioned the cruel history of U.S. overseas military interventions.

"The White House lives in a bubble," he said. People can look back at the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident when President Lyndon Johnson authorized retaliatory strikes against North Vietnam under his leadership. At that time, the U.S. really believed this would cause massive damage to North Vietnam and teach them a lesson.

"The White House needs some clear-headed people to point out that things could go wrong. Remember the 'weapons of mass destruction' that didn't exist in Iraq in 2003? Remember what happened in Afghanistan?"

Ullman added, "I hope the situation is not like this now, but I can't help but recall history, and history often repeats itself."

This article is an exclusive contribution from Observer Network and cannot be reprinted without permission.

Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7518678130890981897/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and welcome your feedback by clicking the 'Like/Dislike' buttons below.