On June 22, President Donald Trump ordered military strikes against Iran. The attacks targeted three nuclear sites, including the notoriously fortified Fordow uranium enrichment facility. Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lead, the United States carried out the attacks with minimal collateral damage and no American casualties. Still, they were a mistake.
Let’s begin with the pretext for war. Netanyahu claimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was just around the corner. The White House concurred, setting the timetable for a potential Iranian nuclear weapon at a couple of weeks. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, took it even further, warning of mushroom clouds over New York City and Los Angeles. This all sounds terrifying; thankfully, it’s wrong.
After the strikes, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, denied having proof of Iranian efforts to build a nuclear weapon. The same goes for Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, who testified in front of Congress that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Gabbard went on to affirm the U.S. intelligence community’s belief that the program was dormant since its suspension in 2003.
Netanyahu and his supporters in the White House engaged in semantic trickery. Saying Iran could produce a nuclear weapon did not mean they were producing one, although the effect was the same: Widespread support for military action. In reality, Iran enriched uranium to concerning levels, but the jump to a nuclear weapon required further technical innovations.
This begs the obvious question, why would Iran enrich uranium far above the threshold for civilian usage if they did not plan to make a bomb? The answer is leverage. Tehran was attempting to cut a deal with the United States, making nuclear concessions in exchange for economic relief. The enriched uranium – most of which was not destroyed by U.S. or Israeli strikes – was used to strengthen Supreme Leader Ali Khamnei’s negotiating position. A dangerous escalation, but hardly proof of nuclear ambition.
While the Iranian regime is grotesque, they have a history of cutting deals. Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and contrary to Tehran’s belligerent rhetoric, they further limited their nuclear program under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In 2023, the government even permitted global watchdogs to re-install cameras in their nuclear facilities. Underneath their violent rhetoric lies a rational desire for the regime to remain in power.
If Trump was the dealmaker he claims to be, he would have continued diplomatic efforts to prevent a bomb. Striking Iran in the midst of negotiations reinforces the notion that nuclear weapons are of existential necessity for a country that considers itself perpetually under attack. By failing to grapple with the Iranian perspective, Trump lent credibility to the country’s hardliners.
This sets a terrible precedent. Either you refuse to engage in talks with the United States, in which case you get bombed, or you do engage and still get bombed. That’s not 4-D chess, it’s an irresponsible way of conducting foreign relations. Sure, the consequences of our bellicosity were not felt immediately – Iran responded with a non-lethal rocket barrage – but the future is still uncertain. Perhaps other countries view nuclear weapons as the only safeguard against U.S. encroachment, or maybe Iran will rebuild their nuclear program with renewed vigor. Either way, Americans do not benefit from a government that is globally perceived as violent and undiplomatic.
Furthermore, these strikes add to the disturbing trend of U.S. foreign policy punishing de-nuclearization. For example, in 2003 Libyan President Muhammar Ghadaffi dismantled his country’s nuclear program. A few years later, Ghadaffi was sodomized to death in a U.S.-backed coup. Now Iran, a country that repeatedly made nuclear concessions, finds itself on the brink of regime change. Conversely, nuclear-armed Pakistan has never been the subject of American invasion, despite harboring 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden.
This is not a question about liking versus disliking the Iranian regime — the real question is whether we want perpetual conflict with a country of 92 million people, or if diplomacy should be given another shot. Will bombing Iran become a once-every-five-years tradition when the regime enriches uranium to concerning levels? The White House has yet to give us an answer.
Maybe this whole plan works out. Trump was right to call for peace after the strikes, and successfully avoided a ground invasion. But the U.S. media cycle moving on does not signify the end of hostilities. The chain reaction of war – and bombing a country is an act of war – is impossible to predict. This is no time for celebration, but for reflection on the consequences of a bombing campaign that never needed to happen. In blowing up diplomacy yet again, Trump seized defeat from the jaws of victory.
Jack Verrill is an Opinion Analyst writing about national security, the economy and domestic politics. He can be reached at jverrill@umich.edu.
