The recent military strikes conducted by the U.S. on key Iranian nuclear sites have reignited debates surrounding Washington’s long-term strategy in the Middle East. While President Donald Trump has celebrated these actions as a significant blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, responses from experts in the region and beyond portray a more fragmented landscape of opinion.
Prior to the coordinated attacks by Hamas on Israel on October 7, the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were moving towards a closer alliance aimed at countering Iraq’s growing influence in the region. However, the recent strikes represent a departure from shared strategic goals and highlight a shift from diplomatic discussions to a strategic application of military force.
Analysts assert that, despite the long-standing diplomatic alignments on paper, these airstrikes indicate a new phase of operational collaboration between the involved countries.
The attacks have illuminated deep divisions among policymakers and analysts on the best path forward for security and stability in the Middle East, bringing forth a spectrum of responses ranging from calls for regime change to warnings about legal overreach and the potential for diplomatic collapse.
NPR’s Morning Edition has sat down with five scholars and former diplomats who possess expertise in diplomacy and the Middle East to dissect the implications of these attacks, assessing what they achieved, what they jeopardized, and the evolving prospects for diplomacy in the region.
John Bolton, who has served as national security adviser during Trump’s first term and as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, contends that the only path to long-lasting peace and stability in the region is the overthrow of Iran’s current regime.
Bolton expressed his desire for continued military campaigns against Iran, stating, “I wouldn’t have terminated the air campaign as soon as Trump did, and I would’ve wanted to see Iran placed under intense surveillance.”
He described the necessity of dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities by breaking the links within its nuclear production process, stating he is content with the “enormous damage” rendered by recent strikes.
“The effort to destroy a complex program involves breaking the links in the nuclear fuel cycle at multiple points, making it a lengthy endeavor for them to rebuild, which is why I’m satisfied with the current situation,” Bolton remarked.
He underscored his focus on the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, which he claims has been severely impacted by the strikes.
Despite recognizing Trump’s inconsistent strategy, Bolton noted that the President’s zigzagging actions are a reflection of his unpredictable nature.
In contrast, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian diplomat involved in past nuclear negotiations, calls attention to the historic implications of the U.S. and Israeli strikes.
According to Mousavian, the military actions against Iran were conducted without UN Security Council authorization, underscoring a dangerous precedent.
“What could be worse than this? How can Iran trust?” he questioned the validity of future diplomatic engagements.
He posits that claims surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions are primarily rhetorical strategies leveraged to justify military endeavors and regime change initiatives.
Mousavian firmly believes the only viable solution moving forward is the establishment of direct negotiations between Tehran and Washington.
“I propose direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S. because I truly see no other alternative, given the ineffectiveness of the International Atomic Energy Agency in these matters,” he stated.
As the repercussions of the strikes unfold, Jonathan Panikoff, a former intelligence officer now heading the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council, notes that Iran’s military capability faces significant degradation.
Panikoff identifies a potential avenue for diplomacy, possibly facilitated by countries such as Oman, Norway, or Switzerland, indicating that while challenges remain, a pathway exists for negotiations.
“In the coming weeks and months, a lot of cajoling will be required, but one could imagine an external actor like China playing a role in encouraging Iran to return to the negotiating table,” he suggested.
He further elucidates Iran’s current dilemma: whether to divert substantial financial resources to restore its military capabilities, which could exacerbate internal economic strife, or to pursue a more cautious approach.
He implied that rebuilding its defenses could bring about significant changes in Iran’s relations with regional allies, impacting its long-supported proxy networks, such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
In a broader context, Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar at Johns Hopkins University, provides critical insight into the implications of U.S. and Israeli military actions.
He warns that these operations highlight a willingness to bypass international diplomatic conventions, which may fundamentally alter security perceptions in the region.
Nasr articulated his concern that the ability to bypass diplomacy could have lasting repercussions on perceptions of security among various regional actors, both allies and adversaries alike.
Highlighting that the Iranian regime remains intact, Nasr reflects that this military approach positions the U.S. and Israel as entities ready to utilize military might over diplomatic negotiations.
Setareh Sadeqi, a professor at the University of Tehran’s Faculty of World Studies, operates from a different vantage point, stating that Israel’s portrayals of Iran’s nuclear aspirations are largely inflated.
Sadeqi acknowledges the detrimental impact of war, emphasizing that violence indiscriminately affects all civilians, regardless of their political alignment.
She challenges Israel’s continuous assertions that Iran is merely weeks away from developing nuclear weapon capabilities, declaring, “While I completely oppose nuclear weapons, every country should have the right to pursue them if certain states possess that right.”
When critiqued about Iran’s stance toward Israel, Sadeqi clarified, “Iran has never called for the elimination of a people, only the occupation and the regime that has perpetuated a colonial agenda in the region.”
She pointed out that many hold Israel accountable for perceived injustices against the Palestinian and Lebanese populations.
Despite the prevailing tensions, Sadeqi reassured that life in Tehran continues in a semblance of normalcy, adding, “War does not discriminate; it does not care whether one is pro-government or anti-government — it harms everyone in its path, and that is precisely what Israel has conducted.”
The responses gathered reflect a complex landscape of ideas and opinions about the impact of U.S. military actions against Iran, challenging the notion of a singular path toward stability in the Middle East amidst these tumultuous developments.
image source from：npr
