In an extraordinarily fast-paced story, President Trump announced from the White House that he had authorized military strikes against three Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. In just 30 minutes or less on Saturday, the sites had been obliterated. Since then, much has transpired, including a ceasefire announcement by the president.
Trump didn’t wait for Iran to attack or build a bomb. He acted because he believed they were planning to, and that was reason enough.
As we go to press, an unlikely truce has held between Israel and Iran, even if this meant that Iran had to unleash a harmless weapon against an American military base and President Trump had to unleash a torrent of harsh words against both countries for violating the terms of the ceasefire. Oil prices, the best barometer of stability during conflict and strife, are holding steady, hovering around $65, a level lower than where they were when Trump was inaugurated.
From a geopolitical standpoint, Trump's actions last weekend center on two elusive and controversial concepts in international law: intent and preemption. Neither idea is clearly defined within the United Nations Charter. In fact, after World War II, when the UN established foundational principles regarding national sovereignty and the right of nations to associate freely, the notions of intent and preemptive self-defense became even murkier. Yet history shows that global powers frequently invoke these justifications to go to war.
Intent: For as long as we can remember, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently warned the international community that Iran must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. To his credit, Trump has echoed these concerns throughout his political career, aligning with Netanyahu's stance even before taking office.
Preemptive action: Together, the two leaders orchestrated a shift in Middle East policy—first, when President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) during his first term, arguing that the Obama-era agreement was too lenient, and since Friday night, when the U.S. military launched strikes against three nuclear reactors deep inside Iran.
Trump's critics have been numerous and vigorous, expressing the usual shock and dissent whenever Trump does anything good, even if he bakes apple pie. On one extreme, Congresswoman AOC, the Democrats' rising star, insisted on impeachment proceedings, and Congressman Al Green formally filed paperwork in the House. The charge was that he acted outside the bounds of the Constitution by deploying military assets against a foreign power without seeking Congressional support—although numerous presidents have routinely done the same in emergencies. The other whiners complained that Trump was violating his MAGA principles of no interference in foreign conflicts, with some hoping that Trump's orders last Friday would be his Waterloo.
As we write this editorial, the liberal media is questioning whether the Iranian nuclear weapons program was indeed obliterated, as Trump and his defense secretary have said. CNN broke with a leaked story from the Defense Intelligence Agency saying that initial bomb damage assessments show that the program was set back by months but not obliterated. Defense Secretary Hegseth alluded to this very point at his Saturday morning conference. The B-2 pilots dropped 210 tons of bombs on target and left Iranian airspace after being there for only 30 minutes. So, it would take months to determine the extent of the damage. Anecdotally, no facility could survive that kind of bombardment. Those familiar with nuclear enrichment note that the centrifuge machinery used in uranium processing is highly delicate and cannot possibly withstand the shock and pressure of bunker-buster strikes, making it likely that the core infrastructure was indeed destroyed. “Given the explosive payload and the extreme vibration sensitivity of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected,” said Rafael Mariano Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, speaking in Vienna.
However, CNN missed the larger point of Trump's intent and preemptive action. Even if Iran's program was temporarily paused and all the 400 kgs of nuclear material is intact, Iran understands Trump's intent to prosecute by taking decisive action. The President has repeatedly said that if Iran were to give up its nuclear program, he would reward it by lifting sanctions. Indeed, he has already withdrawn the sanctions he recently imposed on Iran for selling oil to China. Sticks and carrots work well with the Mullahs of Iran.
Trump's decision to preemptively act on intent carries risks. Limited engagement, like on Saturday, is fine. But imagine the horror if one of the planes had been shot down and the pilots had ejected and been captured. Iran knows how to play the hostage game better than anyone. Extended military engagements magnify the risk by orders of magnitude.
The most notorious example in modern history of intent and preemptive action was the George W. Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. A slew of arguments were made, including the fabricated connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, alleging that Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks. Had that been substantiated, the U.S. response would have been legally grounded in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which permits self-defense.
But the world knew better. The alleged link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden was both tenuous and implausible. Saddam was a ruthless, secular dictator whose primary concern was retaining power—brutality was his method, not religious zealotry. Osama bin Laden, by contrast, was a radical Islamist ideologue whose primary mission was to wage jihad against the West. The two had little in common, and no meaningful alliance ever existed.
Despite this, the Bush administration—already resolved to remove Hussein—needed a more plausible justification. It pivoted to a new narrative: that Iraq was importing yellowcake uranium from Africa to build weapons of mass destruction. While the WMD argument gained some credibility given Saddam's prior use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War and against the Kurds, it was still speculative.
To solidify public and international support, Bush dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell, the most respected figure in his cabinet, to make the case at the United Nations that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs and the only way to neutralize the intent was through preemptive action.
History has since judged this moment harshly. No weapons of mass destruction were found. But by then, the U.S. and its allies had already invaded Iraq, fundamentally altering the Middle East and triggering decades of instability. It was one of the most tragic miscalculations in American foreign policy.
Trump is unlikely to make Bush's mistake. The 47th president has positioned himself as a staunch defender of the U.S. military, and "Peace through strength" is central to his worldview. His creation of the U.S. Space Force was emblematic of his desire to maintain American military superiority, even in emerging domains.
The weekend attacks were a one-off event designed to address an emergency, nothing more. The operation was limited, strategic, and intended solely to impair Iran's ability to enrich uranium and plutonium materials critical to nuclear weapon development. If Iran were to invest resources in its nuclear weapons program again, Trump would have a range of options at his disposal to act upon because his intent is as clear as fresh snow and a blue sky.
TIPP Market Brief – June 25, 2025
Your Morning Snapshot
📊 Market Snapshot
- S&P 500: ▲ 6092.18 (1.11% )
- 10-Year Yield: ▼ 4.293%, (2.7 basis points)
- Crude Oil (WTI): ▼ $65.01 (5.11%)
- Bitcoin (BTC): ▲ $106,659.19
- US Dollar Index (USD): ▼ 97.89 (0.08%)
- Gold: ▼ $3,322.20 (1.38%)
Bigger Charts: $SPX | $TNX | $WTIC | $BTCUSD | $USD | $GOLD
📈 Featured Stock
Our pick for today’s featured stock
📰 News & Headlines
TSS Stock Skyrockets 74% on Y/Y Q1 Earnings Surge & AI Demand—Zacks
TSS, Inc. (TSSI): A Bull Case Theory—Ricardo Pillai, Insider Monkey
⭐Recent Featured Stocks
Avis Budget Group (CAR) (6/24)
AngloGold Ashanti (AU) (6/23)
Jabil Circuit (JBL) (6/20)
AST Spacemobile Inc. (ASTS) (6/19)
Cloudflare Inc. (NET) (6/18)
Oklo Inc (OKLO) (6/17)
ATI Inc (ATI) (6/16)
Mr. Cooper Group Inc (COOP) (6/13)
Nuscale Power Corp (SMR) (6/12)
Centrus Energy Corp (LEU) (6/11)
More here
🧠 Macro Insight
● Futures Steady as Markets Eye Ceasefire, Powell
Stocks hover near the flatline as investors weigh the fragile Israel-Iran ceasefire and cautious signals from Fed Chair Powell.
● Israel-Iran Ceasefire Holding
According to Trump’s envoy, talks with Iran are “promising.” Both sides claim success but remain on alert for any further aggression.
● Oil Rebounds Slightly
Crude edges higher but stays near recent lows. Eased tensions in the Middle East reduce immediate supply fears.
● Powell Testifies Again
On Capitol Hill, Powell reiterates a wait-and-see stance. Inflation has cooled but remains above target; tariff uncertainty still looms.
● FedEx Warns on Outlook
FedEx stock dips after soft earnings forecast. The CEO cites volatile demand and new trade policies targeting Chinese retailers as key headwinds.
📅 Key Events Today
🟨 Wednesday, June 25
- 10:00 – Fed Chair Powell Speaks
- 10:00 – New Home Sales (May): Prior: 692K | Forecast: 743K
- 10:30 – Crude Oil Inventories: Previous: -11.473M
