The most dangerous moment of his presidency – Trump is playing with the fire of a new war

Washington – It is a moment of global significance – and a moment in which history begins to rhyme once again. Donald Trump, President of the United States, sits with a solemn expression in the Situation Room, surrounded by his most loyal hardliners: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, and Tulsi Gabbard, once a critic, now rehabilitated as national security advisor. On the table: the question of whether the U.S. should militarily intervene in the escalating Middle East conflict. Targets are burning in Tehran. Israel is bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. And Trump – as if in a poorly written remake of earlier war decisions – is now seriously considering dropping bombs himself.

At the center of the deliberations is a potential attack on the underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow – deeply buried, heavily fortified, and a symbol of Iranian deterrence. The U.S. military has the means: bunker-busting bombs like the GBU-57A/B are ready. But it is not only about explosive power. It is about a decision that could drag the United States into a direct war – at a time of global uncertainty, domestic division, and economic fragility. Trump has, according to close associates, repeatedly spoken of "unconditional surrender" but has not explicitly called for the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The tone eerily echoes George W. Bush’s appearances before the Iraq war – only this time the resonance could be nuclear.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military presence in the region is growing: warships, aerial refueling units, F-35 jets – Washington is projecting strength, but lacks a strategy. While generals and allied nations urge de-escalation, it becomes clear what Trump’s second term means: unpredictability, aggression, demonstration of power. It is a dangerous balancing act in which the president’s calculation appears driven less by security concerns than by political theater. For what better proof of leadership – so his logic – than the destruction of a nuclear facility in enemy territory? What Trump is ignoring: the political, legal, and humanitarian consequences would be devastating. Such an attack could set the entire Middle East ablaze, severely damage relations with Europe, and embolden radical forces worldwide. It would be a war based not on facts but on posturing. A war once again prepared without a UN mandate, without a clear threat, and without congressional approval. A war that could destroy what little remains of the international order – and with it, the reputation of a country that once stood as a guarantor of law, peace, and diplomacy. And yet, this president stands at the brink – ready to take another step forward.