Recent military strikes by Israel and the United States targeting Iranian cities, military facilities, and nuclear sites have sparked a troubling paradox: efforts aimed at stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons might actually be catalyzing its pursuit of them and encouraging other nations to follow a similar path.
On June 13, Israel initiated Operation Rising Lion, a strategic military campaign designed to dismantle key elements of Iran’s nuclear program. This operation included a series of coordinated airstrikes that focused on high-profile nuclear scientists, senior military leaders, and crucial figures within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
While Israel demonstrated air superiority, its capability to eliminate Iran’s most fortified nuclear installations — notably the Fordow enrichment site, buried deep in a mountain — remained limited.
On June 21, U.S. forces carried out significant airstrikes on critical Iranian nuclear locations, such as Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Utilizing B-2 stealth bombers fitted with bunker-busting munitions, the operation aimed to severely hinder Iran’s fortified nuclear capabilities.
Just three days later, both Iran and Israel reached a ceasefire agreement, putting an end to the 12-day military conflict. While both nations proclaimed certain aspects of the military campaign as successful, the violence represented a dangerous escalation in regional tensions and reignited concerns regarding the future of nuclear nonproliferation and security throughout the Middle East.
The backdrop of nuclear negotiations plays a significant role in understanding these developments. The U.S. has long maintained that Iran should never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Following a 2006 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report citing noncompliance with nuclear energy obligations, Iran faced international sanctions.
Under President Barack Obama, the United States pursued a diplomatic route that ultimately led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This agreement required Iran to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent and permitted intrusive inspections by the IAEA in exchange for some relief from international sanctions.
However, in 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. unilaterally from the JCPOA, despite concurrent IAEA reports confirming Iran’s compliance with the terms of the deal. This withdrawal seriously undermined diplomatic confidence and prompted Iran to backtrack on its commitments under the agreement.
The Biden administration’s attempts to reinstate the JCPOA were met with Iranian demands for binding guarantees that future U.S. administrations would not repeat Trump’s actions, assurances that President Biden could not provide.
Consequently, in the wake of these diplomatic setbacks, Iran intensified its nuclear activities. Reports from the IAEA indicated that Iran now possesses over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent — a quantity that could potentially yield 10 to 12 nuclear weapons if refined to the 90 percent threshold.
Iran has historically leveraged its nuclear program as a bargaining tool in negotiations with the United States. Although officials in Tehran assert that the program is purely for peaceful purposes, Iran produces more highly enriched uranium than necessary for its domestic energy needs, using enrichment to exert pressure for sanctions relief.
As President Donald Trump’s administration initiated negotiations for a new nuclear agreement with the aim of imposing stricter limits on Iran’s nuclear program, five rounds of discussions were held before a sixth round scheduled for June 15 was disrupted by Israel’s military assault on Iran two days prior. This strike escalated regional tensions and disrupted the diplomatic process, complicating the chances of reaching a renewed agreement.
Despite President Trump’s assertion that the U.S. strikes had ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear capabilities, initial intelligence evaluations were more circumspect. While there was acknowledgment of substantive damage, total destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remained elusive.
Israel, which maintains ambiguity surrounding its own nuclear program, is perceived as the only country in the Middle East known to have nuclear weapons. Israel has historically undertaken military actions to thwart other regional nations’ nuclear enterprises.
In 2007, Israel targeted a suspected nuclear reactor being constructed in Syria, and in 1981, it destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. The Israeli government may have believed that similar airstrikes could effectively neutralize Iran’s more sophisticated nuclear ambitions. Yet the reality shows that Iran’s nuclear program is considerably more advanced than those of Iraq or Syria at the time.
Although recent airstrikes may have temporarily stalled the program’s advancements, Iran retains the knowledge and resources necessary to rebuild quickly.
Ironically, the strikes intended to diminish Iran’s nuclear capabilities may have spurred Iranian officials to fast-track their aspirations. Following the military engagement, Iran terminated all cooperation with the IAEA, expelling inspectors and cutting access to its nuclear sites. This cessation of access has greatly complicated efforts to monitor or verify the status of Iran’s nuclear activities.
Relying on airstrikes to disrupt Iran’s nuclear advancements is not a sustainable strategy. Israel had hoped that decisive military action would incite national unrest, potentially culminating in the downfall of the Iranian government. Contrary to this expectation, the Iranian populace rallied in support of their government, viewing the military action as a blatant infringement on their sovereignty. This rallying cry strengthened the government’s domestic legitimacy while further stifling political dissent.
Currently, Iranian officials claim they do not intend to pursue a nuclear weapon. However, the Iranian parliament is reportedly drafting legislation to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is presently a signatory. Such a move would eliminate a critical legal and diplomatic barrier to Iran’s ambitions for nuclear armament. Should Iran choose this path, it is likely to instigate a regional nuclear arms race.
In response to such developments, Saudi Arabia has signaled that if Iran were to build a nuclear weapon, it too would seek to develop its own.
To effectively prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a sustained diplomatic approach and the re-establishment of a nuclear agreement are essential. A credible deal that incorporates rigorous verification measures, ongoing IAEA inspections, and sanctions relief presents the most viable pathway.
Conversely, military strikes have historically produced counterproductive outcomes — reinforcing the belief among Tehran and other nations that only a nuclear deterrent can safeguard them against external threats.
image source from：theconversation
