Diplomacy is the Only Way to End the Iranian Nuclear Threat
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump have not emerged as wise and balanced players on the global stage. Both regularly indulge in reckless impulses and approach statecraft through political opportunism. However, the joint military campaign launched by the two countries against Iran was logical and justified. Israel had valid reasons to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, and the United States was right to join the fight, deploying its bunker-buster bombs to strike Fordow (the deeply buried Iranian uranium enrichment plant), along with two other nuclear sites.
Now that Israel and the United States have demonstrated their overwhelming military might, they must now focus on a diplomatic endgame rather than a military one. While airstrikes may destroy existing Iranian nuclear facilities, they provide Iran with a greater incentive to rebuild those facilities in pursuit of a nuclear deterrent. Therefore, Israel and the United States should use their joint military campaign as a tool for coercive diplomacy. Military action should lead to an agreement at the negotiating table to neutralize the threat Iran poses to Israel and the region permanently.
Before the start of the Israeli campaign on June 13, Iran was stockpiling uranium nearing the levels used in nuclear weapons manufacturing. In May, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) identified that Iran had only three weeks to convert its stockpile at Fordow into enough uranium for nine nuclear weapons. While Iran may require additional time to master the construction of such weapons, the fact that highly enriched uranium has no civilian uses—along with evidence of Iran’s previous efforts to build nuclear weapons—was not only a cause for serious concern but also for military action.
Before the first Israeli strikes targeting Iran, this substantial concern drove both the Biden and Trump administrations to seek to neutralize the looming Iranian nuclear threat at the negotiating table. However, the Islamic Republic rejected any agreement.
Iran has also been very transparent about its nefarious strategic intentions. It has spent years building its military, openly called for the destruction of Israel, and actively supported Hamas, Hezbollah, and other extremist groups. The military capabilities of Iran, as well as those of its proxies, pose a direct and significant threat to U.S. interests in the region—including American bases and troops, international shipping, the flow of oil and gas, and the security of U.S. partners in the Gulf. Under these circumstances, it would be folly for the world to remain a bystander while Iran’s nuclear program continues to advance.
While Israel and the United States have valid reasons to seek the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, military power alone will not lead to a lasting solution. The Iranian nuclear program may end up being only partially destroyed, and even if the program is significantly hindered, it can still be rebuilt—perhaps more covertly. Moreover, if Iran finds no diplomatic exit and feels its theocratic regime’s survival is at stake, it is likely to widen the war out of desperation, potentially leading to a wider regional conflict.
Now that the United States is at war, it must again strive for a diplomatic end. Iran has strong incentives to reach an agreement and accept strict limitations on its nuclear program, along with intrusive inspections. Iran’s regional proxies have been decimated, and its military leadership and infrastructure face fierce attacks. With Israel and the United States effectively controlling Iran’s airspace, Iran’s ability to respond diminishes day by day. Simply put, Iran’s hand is uniquely weak, making this moment ideal for extracting concessions at the negotiating table.
Trump also has strong incentives to return to diplomacy. Despite his decision to enter the war, he faces strong opposition from the broad swath of new isolationists within his political base. Even if Israel wishes to continue the campaign (possibly with the goal of toppling the Iranian regime), Trump has no interest in another quagmire in the Middle East. His game is to project strength and then act as a dealmaker who brings peace to the Middle East.
While the pursuit of regime change may be enticing, forcibly toppling the Islamic Republic would be a grave mistake. It is impossible to predict what kind of government would follow, let alone contain the regional fallout that could accompany a political upheaval in Iran. Given the unstable neighborhood, the collapse of the regime in Iran could easily lead to a spread of sectarian and ethnic violence to remote areas.
The United States has already learned this lesson the hard way. Its interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have cost trillions of dollars with little to show for it. Regardless of what happens in Iran, one thing remains certain: Trump should not engage, and will not, in any nation-building process. If Iran collapses, it is certain that the Trump administration will not come to the country’s rescue.
Certainly, most of the Iranian population is fed up with a theocratic government that has overseen economic collapse, social repression, and violent crackdowns on protests and dissent. However, the current war has also rallied Iranians around their country’s banner, as the regime’s brutal security apparatus has maintained its security and safety—at least for now.
After nearly half a century, the regime may be on the verge of collapse. But in the event of its downfall, change must come from within, not be imposed from the outside. The best way to facilitate this goal is to end the war at the negotiating table. After that, it will be up to the citizens of Iran to remove the leadership that has failed on all fronts. This outcome—while far from guaranteed—could lead to a moderate government that may pave the way for the broader regional peace Trump hopes to claim credit for.
