“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???” Trump posted on social media. “MIGA!!!”

The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing.

“This mission was not and has not been about regime change,” Hegseth said.

What the administration has made clear is that it wants Iran to stop any development of nuclear weapons, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio warning on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that any retaliation against the U.S. or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would “put the regime at risk.”

But beyond that, the world is awash in uncertainty at a fragile moment that could decide whether parts of the world tip into war or find a way to salvage a relative peace. Trump’s warning to Iran’s leadership comes as the U.S. has demanded that Iran not respond to the bombardment of the heart of a nuclear program that it spent decades developing.

The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the U.S. president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began earlier this month.

Up until the U.S. president’s post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Trump’s vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran’s lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table.

Hegseth had said that America “does not seek war” with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington.

But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington’s control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings that could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack U.S. bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear program that might seem like more of a necessity after the U.S. strike.

All of that raises the question of whether the strikes will open up a far more brutal phase of fighting or revive negotiations out of an abundance of caution. Inside the U.S., the attack quickly spilled over into domestic politics with Trump choosing to spend part of his Sunday going after his critics in Congress.

Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambaste Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval.

“We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the ‘bomb’ right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)” Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social.

What Trump’s national security team had to say

At their joint Pentagon briefing, Hegseth and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that “Operation Midnight Hammer” involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance.

Caine indicated that the goal of the operation — destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved.

“Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,” Caine said.

Vance said in a television interview that while he would not discuss “sensitive intelligence about what we’ve seen on the ground,” he felt “very confident that we’ve substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon.”

Pressed further, he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it’s going to be many many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon.”

The vice president said the U.S. had “negotiated aggressively’ with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting “in good faith.”

“I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbors, not to be a threat to the United States, and if they’re willing to do that, the United States is all ears,” Vance said.

Rubio said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “there are no planned military operations right now against Iran, unless, unless they mess around and they attack” U.S. interests.

Trump has previously threatened other countries, but often backed down or failed to follow through, given his promises to his coalition of voters not to entangle the United States in an extended war. It was not immediately clear whether Iran saw the avoidance of a wider conflict as in its best interests.

How Iran and others are reacting to the US strikes

Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East after the U.S. inserted itself into the war between Israel and Iran. Israeli airstrikes that began on June 13 local time targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities and generals, prompting retaliation from Iran and creating a series of events that contributed to the U.S. attack.

While U.S. officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticized the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Washington was “fully responsible” for whatever actions Tehran may take in response.

“They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,” he said at a news conference in Turkey. “I don’t know how much room is left for diplomacy.”

China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the U.S. military action. The attacks were “a gross violation of international law,” said Russia’s Foreign Ministry, which also advocated “returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course.” A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to “a global level.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation.

The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for “a rapid resumption of negotiations.” France’s Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi crown prince and sultan of Oman.

Iran could try to stop oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, which could create the same kind of inflationary shocks that the world felt after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Oil prices increased in the financial markets as the war between Israel and Iran had intensified, climbing by 21% over the past month.

Hegseth offers an explanation for the timeline

The Pentagon briefing did not provide any new details about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Hegseth said the timeline for the strikes was the result of a schedule set by Trump for talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions.

“Iran found out” that when Trump “says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation,” Hegseth said. “Otherwise, that nuclear program, that new nuclear capability will not exist. He meant it.”

That statement was complicated as the White House had suggested last Thursday that Trump could take as much as two weeks to determine whether to strike Iran or continue to pursue negotiations. But the U.S. benefited from Iran’s weakened air defenses and was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran.

“Iran’s fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran’s surface to air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission,” Caine said.

Hegseth said that a choice to move a number of B-2 bombers from their base in Missouri earlier Saturday was meant to be a decoy to throw off Iranians. Caine added that the U.S. used other methods of deception as well, deploying fighters to protect the B-2 bombers that dropped a total of 14 bunker-buster bombs on Iran’s sites at Fordo and Natanz.

The strikes occurred Saturday between 6:40 p.m. and 7:05 p.m. in Washington, or roughly 2:10 a.m. on Sunday in Iran.

An extended conflict in the Middle East is now the “most likely” scenario after the US escalation over the weekend, commodities analysts at ANZ said on Monday morning.

“Risks of supply disruption in the crude oil market have risen sharply following an escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict,” Daniel Hynes and Soni Kumari, commodity strategists at the Australian lender, wrote in a note.

“The most likely scenario . . . in our view is an extended conflict. This would see supplies come under direct threat,” they said.

“However, the oil market is better equipped to respond to that than it has been in the past,” they added, noting that Opec has more than 6mn barrels a day of spare capacity that can be quickly activated.

They expected a price range of $75-$85 a barrel “for this scenario”.

Trump administration officials stressed that the airstrikes on Saturday night were targeted at Tehran’s nuclear program and not aimed at regime change nor the start of a wider war that would require boots on the ground.

But the direct involvement in offensive operations—which included massive “bunker busters” dropped from stealth bombers—in what had been a conflict primarily between Israel and Iran still marked a major escalation.

Futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 153 points, or 0.36%. S&P 500 futures were down 0.39%, and Nasdaq futures slipped 0.52%.

Earlier on Sunday before premarket trading began, Wedbush Securities Managing Director Dan Ives had a bullish take for Wall Street in the wake of the U.S. attack on Iran.

“The market will view this Iran threat as now gone and that is a positive for growth in the broader Middle East and ultimately the tech sector,” he posted on X. “It will take some time for this conflict to settle, but the market will view the worst is now in the rear-view mirror. Expect stocks up.”

U.S. oil prices were up 2.8% at $75.84 per barrel after paring gains, and Brent crude leapt 2.7% to $79.07.

While global markets had been expecting to see an initial jolt for oil, energy analytics firm Kpler pointed to other mitigating factors that could soften the blow eventually.

“Expect oil to open with a sharp 7–10% gap up as risk premiums surge. But don’t be fooled, this may not last,” it posted on X.

Iran’s ability to retaliate is constrained, Kpler noted, saying a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely. Meanwhile, an early OPEC+ output boost for August of 411,000 barrels per day or more is increasingly likely, it added.

Escalation of the Middle East conflict could be a test of whether U.S. bonds and the dollar are still seen as safe-haven assets in times of crisis.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury edged up 1.4 basis points to at 4.389%. The dollar fell 0.32% against the euro and 0.25% against the yen. Gold, which is emerging as an alternative to the dollar, gave up gains to trade flat at $3,385.00 per ounce.

The coming week will feature several key events and economic reports. Several Federal Reserve officials will speak throughout the week, including Chairman Jerome Powell who is appearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Data for existing home sales, new home sales, and pending sales are due Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, respectively, as the housing market shows signs of oversupply and weak demand.

Also on Thursday, an initial reading on the trade deficit will come out amid Trump’s tariffs along with durable-goods orders.

On Friday, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, the personal consumption and expenditures price index, is due.