Following President Donald Trump’s announcement on June 19, the world is watching closely as he deliberates over a critical decision: whether the United States will join Israel’s military campaign against Iran within the next two weeks.
This decision could herald a new chapter of military engagement in the Middle East, fraught with uncertainty and high stakes. With objectives that remain ambiguous—principal among them the countering of nuclear proliferation—the prospect evokes painful memories of the Iraq War for many Americans.
Despite Trump’s previous claims of opposing the Iraq War, any military intervention in Iran is framed through a narrow lens, focusing particularly on the underground Fordow nuclear enrichment facility. It is suggested that Israel’s capabilities may fall short, necessitating U.S. involvement.
While some may view this as a limited operation, it entails significant risks. Iran may retaliate against U.S. military installations in the region or even launch terrorist attacks against American citizens abroad. Such a situation could escalate the United States’ involvement in Iranian affairs, rather than bringing about a resolution.
Moreover, the implications of a U.S. intervention have the potential to complicate the already tenuous landscape of international security.
A key aspect of the ongoing discussions includes two critical pathologies permeating American foreign policy over the last century. The first pathology lies in the assumption that airpower can achieve strategic outcomes. Israel has positioned itself as actively working to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, specifically targeting Fordow as a pivotal site. The narrative is that if Fordow is neutralized, Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be severely curtailed.
However, this belief is predicated on untested assumptions about the capabilities of U.S. military operatives. Though confident that the GBU-57 bunker buster can penetrate the extensive fortifications protecting Fordow, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding whether this could be successfully achieved.
The U.S. military acknowledges that the facility’s depth means a singular attack may not suffice. Instead, multiple precision strikes may be necessary, leaving the potential for mission failure on the table. Such an outcome could embolden Iran, allowing it the capability to resume its nuclear ambitions with renewed vigor, effectively undermining the very goals the strikes were intended to achieve.
Facing the prospect of U.S. ground forces engaging in a direct assault not only heightens risks to American lives, but it also opens up realms of retaliation from Iran.
The second pathology is a misplaced belief that regime change can be accomplished smoothly, and that a new government will be inherently better than its predecessor. Israeli officials have been increasingly vocal about their intent to see the Islamic Republic of Iran overthrown. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assertions about “liberating” the Persian people and the suggestion that eliminating Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, would effectively end the conflict reflect this sentiment.
Yet, despite widespread unpopularity for the Iranian regime, the ease of effecting regime change must be scrutinized. Historical precedents indicate that simply removing a leader does not guarantee instability or the emergence of a preferable system of governance. The Iranian government, having been entrenched for 46 years, possesses robust state institutions that could withstand such an upheaval.
Moreover, lessons from the region’s past interventions suggest the potential for the vacuum created by regime change to lead to chaos rather than stability. The fragmentation of Iranian society during a leadership crisis could create fertile ground for extremist elements to rise, potentially ushering forward a regime as or more antagonistic than the current one.
Pointing to past attacks on leadership structures, such as those on Hezbollah, only highlights the inaccuracy of assuming a similar outcome for Iran. Hezbollah continues to exist and thrive despite losing key figures, flagging the reality that military action alone does not ensure an adversary’s demise.
As discussions about the potential U.S. military involvement unfold, the prevailing feeling among the American public suggests deep reluctance for another military venture in the Middle East. Polls indicate a considerable majority opposes any military intervention in Iran, which points to a nation weary from years of prolonged military engagements.
Hypothetically, even if the U.S. and Israel achieve their military objectives—or even instigate regime change—the sustainability of such outcomes is questionable. Past experiences show that achievements on the battlefield often lead to unanticipated complications and political failures.
For instance, while striking the Fordow facility could deal a significant blow to Iran’s nuclear aspirations temporarily, the long-term efficacy of such an operation remains elusive. Iran would still maintain the knowledge and scientific expertise to revive its nuclear program, should the conditions become propitious.
Moreover, the existing stockpile of Iran’s highly enriched uranium is likely to withstand military strikes due to its being distributed across various facsimiles and locations. Should the Islamic Republic decide to withdraw from existing nuclear agreements, the unwinding of any oversight mechanisms could be facilitated, making future clandestine activities harder to detect.
Consequently, the adage that military success does not necessarily translate to political success holds truer than ever. If military actions fail to debilitate Iran’s nuclear ambitions outright, they may merely postpone the inevitable, leading to a cyclical repetition of military responses as the U.S. and its allies grapple with the implications of a less constrained Iranian nuclear program.
In an arena of international relations where credible agreements are scarce, the historical record highlights the risks tied to military interventions, especially tasking the American military to effect regime change. With significant prior failures in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, the history of U.S. military occupation does not reinforce confidence that such a method can foster a stable and friendly regime.
Even if the objective is to extend a perceived timeline before Iran achieves nuclear breakout capacity, the consequences of such military action necessitate a careful reevaluation.
U.S. and Israeli military stakeholders have argued that intervention can theoretically ‘buy time’ against Iran’s nuclear progress. However, this frame of reference risks oversimplifying the underlying complexities of influencing a regime’s strategic calculus regarding its nuclear ambitions.
The reasoning that actions to set back Iran’s nuclear program equate to a safer future overlooks a stark reality: regimes under perceived threat may accelerate their pursuit of nuclear capabilities to ensure survival. The phenomenon of Libya and Iraq’s disbanding of their nuclear programs resulting in regime change, compared to North Korea’s survival bolstered by its nuclear arsenal, may send distinct messages to Tehran.
In light of this, pursuing a well-structured and robust agreement with Iran, one that includes verification of its nuclear activities, is a more viable pathway compared to descending into another uncertain military engagement. Negotiating a responsible deal would create a framework capable of delivering a long-term resolution.
The coming two weeks present an opportunity for President Trump and his administration to arrest the inclination towards military intervention in favor of strategic negotiations. Failing to engage in such diplomatic efforts may risk dragging the U.S. deeper into a conflict marked by uncertainty, raising the specter of another foreign policy debacle that could haunt Americans for generations.
Reflecting on the landscape of U.S. foreign policy, history serves as both a cautionary tale and a guide. It emphasizes the complex intersections of military might, regional stability, and the imperative for negotiation. Navigating these waters requires strategic foresight, a commitment to diplomacy, and an understanding of the broader implications of military engagement. Only through these measures can the U.S. hope to foster a long-term resolution to the persistent challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
image source from：foreignaffairs
