Donald Trump, the president who returned to the White House in January promising to be a “peacemaker”, has taken a dramatic step to insert the US into the fraught conflict between Iran and Israel.

Far from bringing peace to the Middle East since taking office, Trump is now presiding over a region on the precipice of even greater warfare – a fight in which America is an active participant.

In a televised address to the nation from the White House just over two hours after announcing on social media that American forces had struck three nuclear sites in Iran, the American president said the operation had been a “spectacular success”.

He expressed hope that his move would open the door to a more lasting peace where Iran no longer had the potential to become a nuclear power.

Iran has said that there was only minor damage to its heavily fortified Fordo nuclear site. Time will tell which side is correct.

Flanked by Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump warned Iran that if they did not abandon their nuclear programme, they would face future attacks that were “far worse and a lot easier”.

There were “many targets left”, Trump said, and the US would go after them with “speed, precision and skill”.

Despite the president’s bravado, a continued American military engagement in Iran may be a worst-case scenario for the US, the region and the world.

UN Secretary General warned of a “spiral of chaos” that could result from the American decision to escalate the conflict, noting that the Middle East was already “on edge”.

If Iran retaliates – as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned would happen in the event of a US attack – then the American side may feel compelled to respond.

Trump’s “unconditional surrender” rhetoric from earlier this week had put the president in a position where it would be difficult for him to back down. Iran has backed itself in a similar corner.

This is how wars start – and how they can expand beyond the control, and imaginations, of those involved.

On Thursday Donald Trump gave the Iranians a two-week deadline but that turned out to be much shorter than expected. On Saturday night, the US president announced he had acted.

Was the two weeks for negotations a feint? A bid to lure the Iranians into a false sense of security this weekend? Or did behind-the-scenes negotiations led by Trump’s designated peacemaker Steve Witkoff collapse?

In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, little is known. But in his social media post and in his televised address, Trump tried to open the door for peace.

That may be an optimistic outlook, however. While the Israelis have made considerable efforts toward degrading Iran’s military capabilities, the ayatollah still has weapons at his disposal.

Things could get messy fast.

Now the waiting game begins. How will Iran respond to attacks on three of its sites, including Fordo, seen as the crown jewel of its nuclear programme?

Trump appears to be hoping the US strikes force Iran to make greater concessions at the negotiating table, but it seems unlikely that a nation unwilling to talk while under Israeli attack will be more inclined when American bombs are also falling.

And while Trump seemed to be implying that the US attack was a singular, successful event, if that’s not the case, then the pressure to strike again will grow – or the president will have taken a serious political risk for minimal military gain.

That risk includes domestic political concerns, along with questions of international security. The prospect of a US attack on Iran had already prompted sharp criticisms not only from Democrats but also from within Trump’s own “America First” movement.

The president’s unusual decision to give his national address flanked by three of his closer advisors may have been an attempt to project unity within his party.

Vance, in particular, has been an outspoken advocate of a more restrained American foreign policy and, recently, had taken to social media to make the case that Trump is still a non-interventionist who should be given the benefit of the doubt by his supporters.

If this attack is a one-off event, Trump may be able to smooth over the divisions within his base. But if it pulls the US into a larger conflict, the president could have an uprising with his ranks.

Saturday’s attack was an aggressive move for a president who boasted of starting no new wars during his first presidential term and who regularly railed against predecessors who had drawn the country into foreign conflicts on the campaign trail last year.

Trump has made his move. Where it goes from here is not entirely within his control.

US air strikes :

US President Donald Trump says the American military has completed strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing war between Iran and Israel.

“Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight was the most difficult of them all by far, and perhaps the most lethal,” the president said in a brief televised address to the American people.

“But if peace doesn’t come quickly we will go to those other targets with precision, speed and skill.”

One of the targets was Fordo, an enrichment plant hidden in a remote mountainside that is vital to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We do not now know the full scale of the damage at the facilities.

Israeli officials say they were in “full co-ordination” with the US in planning these US air strikes.

Iran could respond by targeting US military assets in the region. Its officials had earlier warned that they would retaliate and that any US attack risked a regional war.

Here is a breakdown of what we know so far.

Israel launched a surprise attack on dozens of Iranian nuclear and military targets on 13 June. It said its ambition was to dismantle its nuclear programme, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said would soon be able to produce a nuclear bomb.

Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are peaceful. In retaliation, Tehran launched hundreds of rockets and drones at Israel. The two countries have continued exchanging strikes since, in an air war which has now lasted more than a week.

Trump has long said that he is opposed to Iran possessing a nuclear weapon.

In March, US national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard said that while Iran had increased its uranium stockpile to unprecedented levels, it was not building a nuclear weapon – an assessment that Trump recently said was “wrong”.

On the campaign trail, Trump had criticised past US administrations for engaging in “stupid endless wars” in the Middle East, and he vowed to keep America out of foreign conflicts.

The US and Iran were in nuclear talks at the time of Israel’s surprise attack. Only two days ago, Trump said he would give Iran two weeks to enter into substantial negotiations before striking – but that timeline turned out to be much shorter.

The US says it hit three nuclear sites – Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan.

Fordo is hidden away in a mountainside south of Tehran, and is believed to be deeper underground than the Channel Tunnel connecting the UK and France.

The uranium enrichment site is considered by experts to be vital to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Fordo’s depth below the Earth’s surface has made it difficult to reach with Israel’s weaponry. Only the US was considered to have a “bunker buster” bomb strong and large enough to destroy Fordo.

That American bomb is called the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It weighs 13,000kg (30,000lb), and is able to penetrate about 18m of concrete or 61m of earth before exploding, according to experts.

Fordo tunnels are thought to be 80m to 90m below the surface, so the MOP is not guaranteed to be successful, but it is the only bomb that could come close.

US officials have confirmed to the BBC’s partner CBS News that MOPs were used in the strikes, with two for each target struck.

It is unclear yet what damage the US attack has had on the nuclear enrichment facilities, or whether there are any injuries or casualties.

The deputy political director of Iran’s state broadcaster, Hassan Abedini, said Iran had evacuated these three nuclear sites a “while ago”.

Appearing on state-run television, he said Iran “didn’t suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out”.

Trump has said the “nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated”.

But speaking on the BBC News Channel, Mark Kimmitt, a former assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, was far more circumspect.

“There’s no way to suggest that it has been destroyed for all times,” he said.

Iran has said that more than 200 people were killed since its latest round of fighting with Israel began, and more than 1,200 were injured.

Meanwhile, Israel is ramping up security in the wake of the US attacks on Iran’s key nuclear sites.

Israel has tightened its public security restrictions across the country, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said.

The upgrade – including a “prohibition on education activities, gatherings, and workplaces” – comes after the US strikes on Iran.

Iran has been weakened significantly by Israel’s attacks on its military bases so far, experts say, as well as the dismantling of its regional proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), in Syria and in Gaza (Hamas). But Iran is still capable of doing a considerable amount of damage.

Iranian officials warned the US against getting involved, saying it would suffer “irreparable damage” and that it risked an “all-out war” in the region.

It has threatened to target US bases in the region in retaliation. The US operates military sites across at least 19 regions in the Middle East, including in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Among the most obvious targets for Iran is the US Navy’s 5th Fleet HQ at Mina Salman in Bahrain.

It could also target a critical shipping route known as the Strait of Hormuz, which links the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean and through which 30% of the world’s oil supply is transported. It could also attack on other sea routes that risk destabilising global markets.

Iran could also target the assets of nearby countries it perceives to be aiding the US, which risks the war spilling over to the entire region.

Under US law, the president does not have the sole power to formally declare war on another country. Only Congress – lawmakers elected in the House of Representatives and the Senate – can.

But the law also states that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. That means he can deploy US troops and conduct military operations without a formal declaration of war.

For example, Trump’s decision to conduct air strikes in Syria in 2017 against the Assad government did not require approval from Congress. Instead, Trump acted unilaterally, citing national security and humanitarian reasons.

Some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have recently tried to limit Trump’s ability to order US strikes on Iran by pushing a war powers resolution through Congress, though it may take weeks before it is put to a formal vote, and such measures are more symbolic than substantive. Please, follow our Facebook page and Visit our Homepage for latest News Update