On June 21, President Donald Trump announced that U.S. forces had struck Iran’s three main nuclear sites — Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow — claiming these facilities were “completely and totally obliterated.” Trump described the operation as a “spectacular military success.”
However, a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency report the next day, cited by CNN, contradicted this claim, stating that the airstrikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by several months, rather than destroying it entirely.
Reports from sources such as “Simplicius’s Garden of Knowledge” on Substack suggest that the Trump administration informed Iran of the strikes through Swiss diplomatic channels, indicating the attack would be a one-off event if Iran did not retaliate. This approach mirrors Trump’s 2017 Tomahawk missile strike on Syria, which was widely seen as more symbolic than destructive.
Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasized that the operation was a single, limited action intended to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, not to pursue regime change.
Yet, Trump’s subsequent social media post hinted at the possibility of regime change in Iran, stating:
“It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”
The military-industrial complex’s false promises
Trump’s unprecedented peacetime defense budget — 75% of the Big Beautiful Bill funnels into the Pentagon, Homeland Security (including 10,000 more ICE agents), and Veterans Affairs — reveals the true priority: militarism over social needs. While Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security face cuts, military R&D thrives, bankrolling everything from drone warfare to AI-driven combat systems.
This reflects a deeper capitalist delusion: that massive military spending can stave off economic crisis. Like a drug, it provides a temporary stimulant — absorbing industrial capacity and masking unemployment — but ultimately worsens the underlying sickness. As President Eisenhower warned in 1961, there is always a “recurring temptation to believe that some dramatic, costly action might magically resolve all current difficulties.”
Two tendencies in the military
The first tendency — the one that appeals to Trump — is the belief in quick, spectacular strikes as solutions. But there is a second, more dangerous tendency: the faceless generals and admirals who see every operation as a potential prelude to wider war. Their plans, though couched in technical jargon, are deeply political, often designed to escalate rather than resolve conflicts.
The strikes on Iran could still spiral into full-scale war. Trump’s rhetoric, combined with the military’s institutional drive for expansion, means “regime change” remains on the table.
The British parallel — and a key difference
The U.S. today mirrors Britain in the 1930s. Britain emerged from World War I with its empire intact but its economic foundations eroded. The costs of maintaining global dominance soon outweighed the benefits. U.S. finance capital displaced Britain in Latin America and Asia, and anti-colonial movements surged. Britain’s military might could not compensate for its economic decline.
Despite its formidable military and empire, Britain’s inability to compete economically with the U.S. led to a loss of global leadership. The U.S. now faces a similar contradiction: an expanding military presence amid a weakening economic foundation. Unlike Britain, which could rely on U.S. support as a fallback, the U.S. has no such safety net.
The U.S. share of global output has steadily decreased, from over 50% in the early 1950s to 26% today. At the same time, China has rapidly advanced, leading global research in critical technologies and maintaining its position as the world’s top manufacturer. The growing divergence between the U.S.’s shrinking economic base and its drive for military expansion is increasingly unsustainable.
No capitalist way out
Unlike Britain, the U.S. cannot offload its crises onto a stronger power. The coexistence of U.S. economic contraction and military expansion is fundamentally unsustainable. The only real solution lies in a socialist transformation — one that would resolve the acute contradictions of monopoly capitalism and redirect resources toward human needs, not endless war.
Join the Struggle-La Lucha Telegram channel