President Donald Trump initially campaigned on a promise to act as a peacemaker, vowing to “end the endless foreign wars.” However, his stance appears to be shifting just months into his presidency, particularly as Israel’s military actions against Iran have intensified.
On June 13, Israel commenced a bombing campaign targeting suspected nuclear sites in Iran, positioning these operations as a necessary measure to thwart Iran’s potential development of nuclear weapons.
Initially, President Trump voiced opposition to these military actions, advocating for a diplomatic resolution instead. He stated, “I don’t want them going in, because I think it would blow it…we’ve had very good discussions with Iran. I prefer the more friendly path.”
In a notable turnaround, Trump took to Truth Social, suggesting that “Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal,” while asserting that “we will have PEACE, soon.”
Despite this optimistic tone, Israeli officials continue to pressure the United States to support their military operations, specifically requesting assistance in utilizing American bunker-busting bombs to target the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, a facility deep underground.
In a dramatic shift, Trump ceased advocating for diplomacy, instead demanding Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” in a series of recent statements. When asked about U.S. involvement in the conflict, he stated, “I may do it, I may not do it,” leaving many questioning his next move.
To contextualize the situation, Popular Information engaged Joe Cirincione, a non-proliferation expert with extensive experience focusing on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Cirincione provided insight into the complex landscape surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.
He noted that for the last 25 years, there has been an ongoing debate over how best to manage Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran claims its nuclear endeavors are peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear fuel.
However, the technology capable of enriching uranium for fuel also has the potential to enrich it to weapon-grade levels. This dual-use nature raises critical questions about trust in Iran’s intentions, which, according to Cirincione, the U.S. does not hold.
Cirincione pointed out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long espoused military action against Iran as the sole solution to its nuclear program, viewing the Iranian regime as an existential threat to Israel.
In 2014, the United States struck a landmark agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which permitted limited enrichment while blocking pathways to nuclear weapons through rigorous inspection protocols. Cirincione described it as the most robust agreement he has seen in his career, crediting it for halting Iran’s progression toward nuclear arms and staving off potential war in the Middle East.
Despite the agreement’s effectiveness, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in 2018, disregarding the recommendations of key allies and military intelligence leaders who argued that the deal was functioning well.
Cirincione highlighted that Trump and Netanyahu are now attempting to resolve a dilemma they created through the abandonment of the agreement. This is evident in Trump’s recent statements advocating for military action against Iran.
In terms of Iran’s current nuclear capabilities, Cirincione asserts that, in the absence of the JCPOA, Iran now stands as a threshold nuclear state.
Where once it could take Iran a year or more to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb, it can now potentially create sufficient highly-enriched uranium for the cores of multiple bombs within weeks. The loss of extensive inspections has exacerbated this situation.
Contrary to claims made by Israeli officials about imminent Iranian threats, U.S. intelligence agencies have found no evidence of an active Iranian plot against Israel. According to Cirincione, the recent Israeli attacks seem aimed at undermining ongoing diplomatic negotiations rather than addressing an existing threat.
When asked about Trump’s advisers and those advocating for military interventions, Cirincione noted a troubling resemblance to the pre-Iraq War narrative, where relentless claims of weapons of mass destruction were utilized to garner public support for military action in Iraq.
He warns that similar justifications are being employed to promote a military campaign against Iran, driven by a desire for regime change rather than actual imminent threats.
Cirincione emphasized that military action might only temporarily disrupt Iran’s nuclear program but would not eradicate it. After years of developing nuclear technology, Iran possesses the expertise necessary to quickly pivot back to enrichment.
If military action were to occur, the aftermath would likely see Iran reestablishing its nuclear capabilities within a few years, regardless of any destruction inflicted during a bombing campaign.
Even more pressing, should the U.S. join Israel in military operations, Cirincione warned that Iran could retaliate against U.S. interests in the Middle East.
“They could directly attack U.S. bases in the Middle East,” Cirincione warned. “This is the definition of an existential crisis for Iran; they would act in self-defense.”
Further actions by Iran could include closing the Straits of Hormuz, a critical waterway that serves as a transit point for one-fifth of the world’s oil supply, which would have dire global economic consequences.
Cirincione reiterated that no previous U.S. president has chosen to strike Iran, understanding the complexities involved. While tactical victories could be achieved, extended conflict could transpire, leading to broader global ramifications.
As tensions mount, Cirincione noted that there exists a potential off-ramp from this situation: President Trump’s tendency for unpredictability. He might find a way to reverse his current path and reinitiate negotiations with Iran.
Trump’s leadership style, characterized by erratic shifts and lack of a comprehensive strategy, is reflective of his current position in handling the crisis. Ultimately, as the situation in Iran evolves, the potential for diplomatic resolutions remains a critical component amid escalating military tensions.
image source from：popular
