- U.S. bombings of Iranian nuclear sites raise questions about nuclear impact and reprisals.
- National security experts debate if strikes deter Iran or spur nuclear weapon development efforts.
- President Donald Trump announced Monday a ceasefire between Israel and Iran would take place.
SALT LAKE CITY — Questions swirled in the wake of the U.S. bombings of Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday.
How successful were the strikes in setting back Iran's nuclear development?
Would the involvement in the Israel-Iran war prompt reprisals against U.S. military personnel or civilians?
And, perhaps top of mind for Americans who have lived through decades of war in the Middle East, did the attacks risk plunging the U.S. into another drawn-out conflict in the region — the likes of which President Donald Trump has railed against since before his first presidential campaign?
Even as Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel Monday afternoon, the future of the conflict seemed unpredictable both in the short and medium term, according to several experts on national security. And as the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure remains unclear, some questioned whether the attacks will lead to Iran backing away from the potential to develop nuclear weapons, or if they will be spurred to rush to develop a bomb.
Here's how those experts are processing the latest developments in the Israel-Iran war and what could come next.
Best and worst case scenarios
Trump has repeatedly described the strikes as an "obliteration" of Iran's nuclear facilities. Utah Sen. Mike Lee agreed with the assessment, writing on X that the Iranian nuclear program had been "wiped out."
Some analysts were more cautious, however, saying it's too early to definitively say whether the strikes destroyed the facilities, including the underground facility at Fordow. Much of the enriched uranium produced at Fordow is said to have been moved to an undisclosed location prior to the bombing, making it unclear how much of the material was destroyed.
"I'm extremely cautious on the use of adjectives, and until we know for sure that the strikes indeed destroyed the bunker where the uranium was, I would suggest caution," said Amos Guiora, a University of Utah professor and author of the book "Modern Geopolitics and Security: Strategies for Unwinnable Conflicts."
"If the Iranians had removed the uranium from that site, then it could be that you blew up the bunker but the uranium is not there," Guiora continued. "Then what? What's the end goal here?"
"At this point, we don't know how effective the strike was," said Austin Knuppe, a Utah State University political science professor with a focus on Middle East politics and war.
"I think the best case scenario is that — if it was completely effective — they totally disabled the three sites that they hit," Knuppe said. "That probably delays the proliferation of (weapons of mass destruction) in Iran by eight to 10 years. That's the best-case scenario.
The worst-case scenario? Iran maintains its ability to enrich uranium and rushes to develop a bomb as a deterrent against future attacks from Israel and the U.S. Trump pulled the U.S. out of an earlier nuclear deal with Iran during his first administration, and many worry that this weekend's attacks could close off paths to diplomacy and anti-proliferation.
"I think that what this shows them — both Israel's response and the United States' strikes — is that if they want a deterrent, they need to do it quickly," said Ryan Vogel, the director of Utah Valley University's Center for National Security Studies.
"I do fall in that category that thinks that over the long term, this could be more destabilizing because it shows Iran that the only way to really ensure their security is to have that effective deterrent like North Korea has," Vogel said. "Countries like Iran would look at that model and say, 'This is where we have to go, based on our experience here in the last couple of weeks.'"
Guiora spoke to KSL.com virtually on Monday from his home outside of Jerusalem, where Israelis have braced against incoming rocket attacks as defense forces have continued to trade volleys with Iran since the U.S. bombings. Although most of the rocket fire from Iran has been concentrated on the capital of Tel Aviv, Guiora described sheltering in the safe room of his home with his grandchildren on Sunday morning when sirens blared warnings of incoming rockets.
"If this weren't real, I would say to you we could have a great discussion about geopolitics, theoretically," he said. "The problem is, this is not theoretical. This is real. President Trump has his motivations and interests. (Israeli) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has his. The Iranian leader has his. ... And then the geopolitics of it can quickly spiral out of control. And I'm not sure of all of these leaders, if there's an adult in the room, and that's a problem."
One person who is confident that the strikes will bolster American security and head off further conflict in the region is former Utah Republican Rep. Chris Stewart. An ally of Trump, Stewart said the president has no interest in getting bogged down in a broader war and said Trump took advantage of the "decimation" of the Iranian defenses to kneecap their nuclear program.
"We sent their nuclear program back. That was our only objective. I don't think we'll do anything further," he told KSL.com. "I think that the public perception of him is going to be not that he's a warmonger, and not that he took us into another long battle in the Middle East. Quite the opposite. He took steps to avoid a potential war, because if Iran were to have gotten nuclear weapons, the entire Middle East changes dramatically, and it becomes much, much more difficult for the United States to manage."
Risk to American soldiers and civilians
Iran retaliated against the U.S. on Monday by launching several missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar, but most of the missiles were intercepted and there were no casualties. Trump said in a post on Truth Social that 13 of 14 missiles were knocked down and that he hoped Iran had "gotten it all out of their system.'" He later announced the ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
Experts generally believed it is against Iran's interests for the conflict to escalate, but added that any military engagement is unpredictable and can spiral quickly.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security also warned that the conflict could inspire violent extremism in the U.S., and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned of Iranian "sleeper cells" within the country.
While it's a scary prospect, Knuppe said it's probably more likely that Iran would choose to retaliate using proxy forces in the Middle East.
"I would suspect that would be a much more difficult thing to pull off," he said. "Lobbing missiles or drones at U.S. military constellations is just an easier operation and it signals Iranian resolve compared to trying to use Iranian assets within the United States to launch terror attacks. I think the latter is much more difficult. It's scary — it's kind of like the nightmare Tom Clancy, suspense, thriller problem, but I suspect that's less likely."
"Though," he added, "I've been wrong before on the Middle East. Anyone that claims to be able to predict what happens in the Middle East is a fool."
Guiora agreed that any threat should be taken seriously.
"If I were the director of the FBI for one minute, I would say to my team, 'This is not some abstract threat,'" he said. "The Iranians have capabilities, and they've proven they have capabilities. And I would suggest to take this very seriously. Bluster as bluster is not a policy."
