Donald Trump has made a series of significant strategic gambles following US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, placing his bets on two critical variables. Firstly, he asserts that the Iranian nuclear sites targeted by the United States have been "completely and totally obliterated." This claim stands in contrast to frequent statements from US military officials, who have often indicated that the total destruction of Iran's nuclear apparatus would be exceedingly difficult, with air strikes more likely to set the program back rather than eliminate it entirely.

The second gamble carries far greater risk for the president: his conviction that Iran lacks either the capability or the courage to strike any of the numerous US bases and diplomatic missions in the region, or to significantly disrupt international shipping. Trump's underlying hope is that the more moderate factions within the Iranian regime will acknowledge what he perceives as their strategic defeat, subsequently choosing a path of dialogue and de-escalation.

This current high-stakes situation evokes a previous moment in Trump's first term when a decisive decision seemingly paid off. In December 2019, he ordered the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, then head of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard, in retaliation for Iranian attacks on Americans. Despite widespread predictions of a massive Iranian counter-attack after Soleimani's killing in January 2020, only isolated and unsustained incidents followed. More recently, a warning from Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, about a potential "mass casualty event" in Israel following an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran also did not materialize, further bolstering Trump's belief that Iran's response to the latest actions will be limited.

Should Trump be proven correct on both of his new gambles – that the nuclear facilities are destroyed and that Iran will not retaliate effectively – it could indeed represent a game-changing moment for regional dynamics. However, the stakes are immensely high; if Iran manages to successfully hit even a single US base and cause American casualties, the entire situation risks spiraling into a far larger conflict.

Beyond the geopolitical arena, Trump has also made a third, domestic gamble. Having campaigned on a pledge to avoid involving America in distant wars, he has now dramatically inserted the US into a potentially new conflict. He must now demonstrate to his supporter base that this action was justified as a unique, powerful strike intended to bring peace through strength.

In a recent late-night address to the nation, Trump underscored Iran's "malign behavior" over decades, reminding Americans that Iranian actions had resulted in casualties and injuries among US personnel. Notably, he was flanked by his Vice President, Secretary of State, and Defense Secretary, an arrangement that suggested a desire to share the responsibility for this significant gamble.