Trump does the deed.

It was not an easy decision, but I think he made the right call.

Years ago, David Frum said, “you can enrich uranium or you can shout ‘death to America’ but you can’t do both. For many years, though, Iran has done both.

Today, President Trump made the bold decision to put a stop to it. He ordered the bombing of three key Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Fordow, the one deep inside a mountain, reportedly was hit with six bunker busters delivered by three B-52s.

According to the administration, the three facilities have been destroyed. We’ll see. But I have to believe that the strikes had a devastating impact on all three.

Trump had said he would decide whether to attack Iranian facilities within two weeks. Ostensibly, this would give Iran a last chance to negotiate with him directly and agree to dismantle its nuclear program.

Trump likely knew that Iran would decline the opportunity. And once Iran said it would only talk to Trump if Israel stopped its attacks, there was no point in waiting for the end of the two-week period.

Iran’s stance reminds me of Hamas’ insistence that it will only negotiate an end to hostilities in Gaza if Israel pulls out and agrees not to return. It hasn’t worked out well for Hamas and now it hasn’t worked out well for Iran.

Sometimes, it’s good to recognize that, as Trump would say, the other side is holding all the cards. But fanatics have trouble understanding this.

Naturally, there are a number of open questions following the American attack. One is whether (and how quickly) Iran can get its nuclear weapons program back on track. My guess is that even if the program hasn’t been destroyed or set back for years, Israel can now keep the program off track by continuing to target Iran selectively, as needed. In this regard, it seems likely that Israel has the intelligence capability to know what needs to be targeted.

The big question is what Iran will do next. The hope is that (1) Iran will take no retaliatory action against the U.S. (I think we have to assume it will keep sending missiles into Israel) and (2) Iran will voluntarily give up its nuclear program.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think there’s much chance that Iran will give up on nukes. (The question might be moot if, in fact, its nuclear program lies in waste.) It also seems highly unlikely that Iran won’t strike back at the U.S. Failure to do so would be uncharacteristic of the regime. It would also entail its utter humiliation.

I see two more realistic Iranian alternatives. First, the regime might respond the way it did when Trump ordered the assassination of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s chief of terrorism, in 2020. That response consisted of firing some missiles at U.S. forces. As I recall, the missiles caused injury to a few dozen U.S. troops, but the attack was not severe enough to cause Trump to escalate. Exchanges of missiles between Israel and Iran prior to the current war have followed something like this model.

The other possibility is that Iran will unleash major fury at the U.S. This would likely consist of large-scale attacks (via missiles and/or militias) on American bases in the region. I’m sure the U.S. has taken action to reduce the likelihood that these attacks will cause major harm, but there’s only so much we can do in this regard.

Iran could also unleash terrorist attacks, including within the U.S. In addition, Iran might try to injure the U.S. economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane.

If Iran chooses the first option — the limited one — it might be able to avoid an American response that would inflict serious damage on the Iranian economy and destroy much of the political leadership. On the other hand, such a response might be too weak to satisfy hardliners and to overcome the humiliation that Israel and America have dealt the regime.

But if Iran chooses the second option, the regime will likely face the most dire consequences. By not targeting political leaders (and dissuading Israel from targeting them) and by not going after Iran’s infrastructure and oil facilities, Trump has given the regime a way out of this conflict.

The mullahs would be smart to take it, but there is no assurance that they will.

Finally, what about regime change in Iran? I agree with those who say it won’t occur while Iran is at war. But once the war ends, will the regime be able to survive the fact that it has lost trillions of dollars, destroyed the economy, and become a pariah by pursuing a nuclear program that is in tatters?

In theory, the regime will still have the arms and the forces to beat back a popular rebellion. But will those forces still be willing to act on the regime’s behalf?

Given Israel’s ability to strike Iran’s leaders where they live and where they hide, it must be the case that people high up in the regime want to see it overthrown. The discontent at upper levels hasn’t been widespread enough to bring about regime change, but maybe now it will be.

In any case, the U.S. should not take overt action to topple the regime. It’s up to the Iranians to accomplish this.

What a new regime would look like is unclear. It always is. But it’s reasonable to predict this much — a new regime would end Iran’s disastrous pursuit of nuclear weapons

The Israel-Iran war left Trump with a difficult decision to make. Should he attack Iran, thus involving us to some degree in the kind of conflict he has always wanted to keep America out of? Or should he leave Israel with the task of completing the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program — something the Israelis seemed unable to accomplish alone.

I think Trump made the right call. He certainly made the courageous one.

I expect many Democrats to snipe at Trump’s decision, though the smart ones will hedge their bets to see how things work out. I expect that the American First Neo-isolationists will denounce Trump’s move — shrilly, in some cases.

I hope, though, that many of those who are skeptical of U.S. military intervention will give Trump the benefit of the doubt or at least hold their fire. There’s a quaint bit of Americana known as supporting the president in times of foreign crises. It’s also known as rallying around the flag.

May we see a revival of that honorable, though largely defunct, tradition.