By Inderjit Badhwar
In this week’s cover story, veteran journalist Kenneth Tiven dissects what may become one of the defining—and most dangerous—decisions of President Donald Trump’s second term: a covert bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities, executed without congressional approval and timed with chilling precision to shift the political narrative back home.
The mission was cinematic in scope: seven stealth B-2 bombers flying a 37-hour round-trip to strike Fordow and other key Iranian nuclear sites. Yet for all the muscle and spectacle, the strategic payoff remains deeply uncertain. As Tiven reports, leaked intelligence assessments from within the US government indicate that Iran had pre-emptively moved vital uranium stockpiles and equipment, minimizing long-term damage.
Why strike now? The domestic context is impossible to ignore. Trump’s approval ratings had plunged below 50 percent. His radical ICE enforcement methods were generating public backlash. His birthday military parade, intended to dazzle, instead drew widespread mockery—and massive protests under the banner “No King.” And Trump was facing mounting attacks from within his own political camp, including from tech magnate Elon Musk.
What emerges from Tiven’s reporting is the portrait of a president using war as political theatre. Bombing Iran achieved multiple goals: it disrupted headlines, projected strength, and gave Trump a platform to claim foreign policy dominance in the lead-up to another bruising election cycle. But at what cost?
Diplomatically, the consequences are already severe. Iran has suspended cooperation with the IAEA. Its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has re-emerged on national television declaring a symbolic “victory” against both Israel and the United States. The Iran nuclear deal, fragile for years, appears all but dead. And US allies, while publicly supportive, are privately wary of Trump’s go-it-alone tactics.
Perhaps most troubling is what this says about American governance. The strike was authorized without input from Congress—part of a broader pattern of Trump bypassing institutional checks and reshaping government into a top-down command structure loyal to his persona. His appointment of loyalists like Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio to top national security roles reinforces the trend.
As always, our job is not just to report what happened, but to ask what it means. In this case, the implications are profound. The erosion of democratic norms at home now parallels the escalation of military aggression abroad. The two are not separate phenomena—they are intimately connected.
This magazine will continue to follow this story as it unfolds. We urge readers not to see this as just another Middle East flashpoint, but as a critical test of American democracy, diplomacy, and moral authority.
Stay informed. Stay critical
The post When War Becomes A Campaign Strategy appeared first on India Legal.