President Donald Trump did precisely the right thing for America by coming to Israel’s assistance and striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran, through its terrorist proxy Hamas, began a war against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, but its nuclear threat began over three decades ago, posing a risk not just to Israel but to the United States and all its allies. It was long past time that Washington did more to aid Israel in defeating Iran and took direct action against Tehran’s nuclear proliferation efforts.
After more than two decades of Iran seeking deliverable nuclear weapons, no one can say Washington has acted precipitously, as if 20-plus years of Tehran’s intransigence and deceit were not enough. Just this March, when Israel appeared poised to strike, Trump offered Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei 60 more days of negotiations. They passed without agreement, surprising almost no one. There was effectively zero chance Iran would agree to any nuclear deal acceptable to America. The world would have been materially less safe if Iran had been allowed to enrich uranium domestically, as in former President Barack Obama’s 2015 agreement.
Trump offered one more delay to see “whether or not people come to their senses.” They clearly were not doing so, and, accordingly, America struck. Further delay would have played into the ayatollahs’ hands.
Delay is always on the side of the would-be nuclear proliferator, particularly here, where Trump himself said Iran was very near actually constructing a nuclear weapon. It was also almost certainly doing everything possible to conceal, move, or harden its nuclear assets against further Israeli or American strikes. Tehran can’t protect everything, but it was taking advantage of each passing hour to protect what it could, including the nuclear scientists and military leaders of its efforts, whom Israel has been systematically eliminating. A joint U.S.-Israeli operation from the outset would have been far more effective, quickly frustrating Iranian efforts to protect its nuclear and missile sites.
There are undoubtedly additional measures now underway to protect American deployed forces and civilian personnel in the region against Iranian retaliation now that we have taken offensive military action. Similarly, we should continue bringing forward additional forces to bolster Israeli and Gulf Arab state defenses against Tehran military retaliation. While Gulf spokesmen have publicly criticized both Jerusalem’s and Washington’s bombing, they know full well that eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat will benefit the entire region, as will overthrowing the ayatollahs. Understandably, the Arabs simply want to avoid becoming collateral damage; their defense is entirely consistent with protecting American military and civilian personnel on the Arab side of the Gulf. In none of these cases is there any question of U.S. ground forces being involved inside Iran. That is simply not on the table.
Even more importantly, now is the time not just to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its core military foundations, thus adding a further, potentially dispositive blow to the regime. Iran’s citizens know that the ayatollahs have spent uncounted billions of dollars aiding terrorist proxies, supporting Syria’s Assad regime, and advancing ballistic-missile and nuclear-weapons efforts that now lie in ruins. In return, Iran’s people have received no benefit whatever, which could cause them to rise against the regime. Only the ayatollahs’ fall will bring any prospect for real Middle Eastern peace and stability, the most compelling reason for Washington to intervene militarily.
One often-made argument against physically destroying Iran’s nuclear-weapons assets is that it would be futile: The regime would still have the scientific knowledge necessary to recreate the program after hostilities end. Ironically, this concern, which is legitimate, precisely matches U.S. analysis of Iraq in George W. Bush’s administration before the Second Gulf War.
After the First Gulf War, U.N. weapons inspectors found Iraq President Saddam Hussein’s nuclear efforts to be far more advanced than previously understood. The physical aspects of Saddam’s nuclear work that could be identified were destroyed, but one key element remained largely untouched. Saddam called Iraq’s cadre of some 3,000 nuclear scientists and technicians his “nuclear mujaheddin.” He kept them in place, waiting until U.N. weapons inspectors no longer roamed Iraq and international sanctions imposed in 1990 after his invasion of Kuwait were lifted.
IRAN ASKED FOR IT. TRUMP DELIVERED
Even if, when Bush 43 ordered Saddam’s regime overthrown, there were no existing facilities to produce nuclear weapons, Iraq still had the intellectual wherewithal to create them. That, along with several other compelling reasons, was enough to justify overthrowing Saddam and sending the “nuclear mujaheddin” off to more productive work. In Iran’s case, it is also precisely why the ultimate objective of destroying the nuclear-weapons program is to help destabilize the ayatollahs and thereby enable their overthrow.
Peace and security in the Middle East are impossible while the ayatollahs rule in Tehran. Overthrowing the current regime is a necessary, even if not a sufficient, condition to reach that goal. The sooner the better.
John Bolton was the national security adviser to President Donald Trump between 2018 and 2019. Between 2005 and 2006, he was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.